On Sun, 29 Sept 2024 at 05:44, Yunsheng Lin <linyunsh...@huawei.com> wrote: > > On 2024/9/28 15:34, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > ... > > > > > Yes, that wasn't very clear indeed, apologies for any confusion. I was > > trying to ask on a linked list that only lives in struct page_pool. > > But I now realize this was a bad idea since the lookup would be way > > slower. > > > >> If I understand question correctly, the single/doubly linked list > >> is more costly than array as the page_pool case as my understanding. > >> > >> For single linked list, it doesn't allow deleting a specific entry but > >> only support deleting the first entry and all the entries. It does support > >> lockless operation using llist, but have limitation as below: > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/include/linux/llist.h#L13 > >> > >> For doubly linked list, it needs two pointer to support deleting a specific > >> entry and it does not support lockless operation. > > > > I didn't look at the patch too carefully at first. Looking a bit > > closer now, the array is indeed better, since the lookup is faster. > > You just need the stored index in struct page to find the page we need > > to unmap. Do you remember if we can reduce the atomic pp_ref_count to > > 32bits? If so we can reuse that space for the index. Looking at it > > For 64 bits system, yes, we can reuse that. > But for 32 bits system, we may have only 16 bits for each of them, and it > seems that there is no atomic operation for variable that is less than 32 > bits. > > > requires a bit more work in netmem, but that's mostly swapping all the > > atomic64 calls to atomic ones. > > > >> > >> For pool->items, as the alloc side is protected by NAPI context, and the > >> free side use item->pp_idx to ensure there is only one producer for each > >> item, which means for each item in pool->items, there is only one consumer > >> and one producer, which seems much like the case when the page is not > >> recyclable in __page_pool_put_page, we don't need a lock protection when > >> calling page_pool_return_page(), the 'struct page' is also one consumer > >> and one producer as the pool->items[item->pp_idx] does: > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/net/core/page_pool.c#L645 > >> > >> We only need a lock protection when page_pool_destroy() is called to > >> check if there is inflight page to be unmapped as a consumer, and the > >> __page_pool_put_page() may also called to unmapped the inflight page as > >> another consumer, > > > > Thanks for the explanation. On the locking side, page_pool_destroy is > > called once from the driver and then it's either the workqueue for > > inflight packets or an SKB that got freed and tried to recycle right? > > But do we still need to do all the unmapping etc from the delayed > > work? Since the new function will unmap all packets in > > page_pool_destroy, we can just skip unmapping when the delayed work > > runs > > Yes, the pool->dma_map is clear in page_pool_item_uninit() after it does > the unmapping for all inflight pages with the protection of > pool->destroy_lock, > so that the unmapping is skipped in page_pool_return_page() when those > inflight > pages are returned back to page_pool.
Ah yes, the entire destruction path is protected which seems correct. Instead of that WARN_ONCE in page_pool_item_uninit() can we instead check the number of inflight packets vs what we just unmapped? IOW check 'mask' against what page_pool_inflight() gives you and warn if those aren't equal. Thanks /Ilias > > >
