Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-206424-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <a8df4459-30bf-4414-aeca-2f67c461adc4@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:46:57 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 02/14] net: page_pool: create hooks for
 custom page providers
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
 bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
 Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@gmail.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
 Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
 Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>, Matt Turner
 <mattst88@gmail.com>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
 "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
 Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
 Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman
 <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
 Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Steffen Klassert
 <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
 David Wei <dw@davidwei.uk>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
 Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>, Shailend Chand <shailend@google.com>,
 Harshitha Ramamurthy <hramamurthy@google.com>,
 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>, Jeroen de Borst
 <jeroendb@google.com>, Praveen Kaligineedi <pkaligineedi@google.com>
References: <20240530201616.1316526-1-almasrymina@google.com>
 <20240530201616.1316526-3-almasrymina@google.com>
 <ZlqzER_ufrhlB28v@infradead.org>
 <CAHS8izMU_nMEr04J9kXiX6rJqK4nQKA+W-enKLhNxvK7=H2pgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5aee4bba-ca65-443c-bd78-e5599b814a13@gmail.com>
 <CAHS8izNmT_NzgCu1pY1RKgJh+kP2rCL_90Gqau2Pkd3-48Q1_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <eb237e6e-3626-4435-8af5-11ed3931b0ac@gmail.com>
 <be2d140f-db0f-4d15-967c-972ea6586b5c@kernel.org>
 <8f44ca2a-8910-418f-b4a6-ca1e051484ba@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8f44ca2a-8910-418f-b4a6-ca1e051484ba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/7/24 16:42, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 6/7/24 15:27, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 6/7/24 7:42 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> I haven't seen any arguments against from the (net) maintainers so
>>> far. Nor I see any objection against callbacks from them (considering
>>> that either option adds an if).
>>
>> I have said before I do not understand why the dmabuf paradigm is not
>> sufficient for both device memory and host memory. A less than ideal
>> control path to put hostmem in a dmabuf wrapper vs extra checks and
>> changes in the datapath. The former should always be preferred.
> 
> If we're talking about types of memory specifically, I'm not strictly
> against wrapping into dmabuf in kernel, but that just doesn't give
> anything.

And the reason I don't have too strong of an opinion on that is
mainly because it's just setup/cleanup path.

> But the main reason for allocations there is the difference in
> approaches to the api. With io_uring the allocation callback is
> responsible for getting buffers back from the user (via a shared
> ring). No locking for the ring, and buffers are already in the
> context (napi) where they would be consumed from. Removes some
> headaches for the user (like batching before returning buffers),
> and should go better with smaller buffers and such.
> 
>> I also do not understand why the ifq cache 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by ifq cache. Can you elaborate?
> 
>> and overloading xdp functions
> 
> Assuming it's about setup via xdp, it was marked for remaking in
> RFCs for longer than desired but it's gone now in our tree (but
> maybe not in the latest series).
> 
>> have stuck around; I always thought both were added by Jonathan to
>> simplify kernel ports during early POC days.
> 

-- 
Pavel Begunkov