Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Message-ID: <7e7c2c21-12ba-41c1-92c4-f32a3906f3ee@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 20:28:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
Cc:     Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb@google.com>,
        Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@google.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        Kaiyuan Zhang <kaiyuanz@google.com>
References: <20231106024413.2801438-1-almasrymina@google.com>
 <20231106024413.2801438-11-almasrymina@google.com>
 <ZUk0FGuJ28s1d9OX@google.com>
 <CAHS8izNFv7r6vqYR_TYqcCuDO61F+nnNMhsSu=DrYWSr3sVgrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF=yD-+MFpO5Hdqn+Q9X54SBpgcBeJvKTRD53X2oM4s8uVqnAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZUlp8XutSAScKs_0@google.com>
 <CAF=yD-JZ88j+44MYgX-=oYJngz4Z0zw6Y0V3nHXisZJtNu7q6A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-JZ88j+44MYgX-=oYJngz4Z0zw6Y0V3nHXisZJtNu7q6A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/6/23 22:55, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:34 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, we need a better UAPI to receive the tokens and give them back to
>>>>> the kernel. CMSG + setsockopt(SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED) get the job done,
>>>>> but look dated and hacky :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> We should either do some kind of user/kernel shared memory queue to
>>>>> receive/return the tokens (similar to what Jonathan was doing in his
>>>>> proposal?)
>>>>
>>>> I'll take a look at Jonathan's proposal, sorry, I'm not immediately
>>>> familiar but I wanted to respond :-) But is the suggestion here to
>>>> build a new kernel-user communication channel primitive for the
>>>> purpose of passing the information in the devmem cmsg? IMHO that seems
>>>> like an overkill. Why add 100-200 lines of code to the kernel to add
>>>> something that can already be done with existing primitives? I don't
>>>> see anything concretely wrong with cmsg & setsockopt approach, and if
>>>> we switch to something I'd prefer to switch to an existing primitive
>>>> for simplicity?
>>>>
>>>> The only other existing primitive to pass data outside of the linear
>>>> buffer is the MSG_ERRQUEUE that is used for zerocopy. Is that
>>>> preferred? Any other suggestions or existing primitives I'm not aware
>>>> of?
>>>>
>>>>> or bite the bullet and switch to io_uring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMO io_uring & socket support are orthogonal, and one doesn't preclude
>>>> the other. As you know we like to use sockets and I believe there are
>>>> issues with io_uring adoption at Google that I'm not familiar with
>>>> (and could be wrong). I'm interested in exploring io_uring support as
>>>> a follow up but I think David Wei will be interested in io_uring
>>>> support as well anyway.
>>>
>>> I also disagree that we need to replace a standard socket interface
>>> with something "faster", in quotes.
>>>
>>> This interface is not the bottleneck to the target workload.
>>>
>>> Replacing the synchronous sockets interface with something more
>>> performant for workloads where it is, is an orthogonal challenge.
>>> However we do that, I think that traditional sockets should continue
>>> to be supported.
>>>
>>> The feature may already even work with io_uring, as both recvmsg with
>>> cmsg and setsockopt have io_uring support now.
>>
>> I'm not really concerned with faster. I would prefer something cleaner :-)
>>
>> Or maybe we should just have it documented. With some kind of path
>> towards beautiful world where we can create dynamic queues..
> 
> I suppose we just disagree on the elegance of the API.
> 
> The concise notification API returns tokens as a range for
> compression, encoding as two 32-bit unsigned integers start + length.
> It allows for even further batching by returning multiple such ranges
> in a single call.

FWIW, nothing prevents io_uring from compressing ranges. The io_uring
zc RFC returns {offset, size} as well, though at the moment the would
lie in the same page.

> This is analogous to the MSG_ZEROCOPY notification mechanism from
> kernel to user.
> 
> The synchronous socket syscall interface can be replaced by something
> asynchronous like io_uring. This already works today? Whatever

If you mean async io_uring recv, it does work. In short, internally
it polls the socket and then calls sock_recvmsg(). There is also a
feature that would make it return back to polling after sock_recvmsg()
and loop like this.

> asynchronous ring-based API would be selected, io_uring or otherwise,
> I think the concise notification encoding would remain as is.
> 
> Since this is an operation on a socket, I find a setsockopt the
> fitting interface.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov