Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-206519-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <a8df4459-30bf-4414-aeca-2f67c461adc4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a8df4459-30bf-4414-aeca-2f67c461adc4@gmail.com>
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:59:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHS8izNcYMsSpTNVSGRJHK6u+kDxnFab5Km1rYy8b++0FeUNgA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 02/14] net: page_pool: create hooks for
 custom page providers
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:47=E2=80=AFAM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I agree wrapping io uring in dmabuf seems to be an unnecessary detour.
I never understood the need or upside to do that, but it could be a
lack of understanding on my part.

However, the concern that David brings up may materialize. I've had to
spend a lot of time minimizing or justifying checks to the code with
page pool benchmarks that detect even 1 cycle regressions. You may be
asked to run the same benchmarks and minimize similar overhead.

The benchmark in question is Jesper's bench_page_pool_simple. I've
forked it and applied it on top of net-next here:
https://github.com/mina/linux/commit/927596f87ab5791a8a6ba8597ba2189747396e=
54

As io_uring ZC comes close to merging, I suspect it would be good to
run this to understand the regression in the fast path, if any. If
there are no to little regressions, I have no concerns over io uring
memory not being wrapped in dmabufs, and David may agree as well.

--
Thanks,
Mina