Hi,
On 4/29/25 5:26 AM, Mina Almasry wrote:
> Augment dmabuf binding to be able to handle TX. Additional to all the RX
> binding, we also create tx_vec needed for the TX path.
>
> Provide API for sendmsg to be able to send dmabufs bound to this device:
>
> - Provide a new dmabuf_tx_cmsg which includes the dmabuf to send from.
> - MSG_ZEROCOPY with SCM_DEVMEM_DMABUF cmsg indicates send from dma-buf.
>
> Devmem is uncopyable, so piggyback off the existing MSG_ZEROCOPY
> implementation, while disabling instances where MSG_ZEROCOPY falls back
> to copying.
>
> We additionally pipe the binding down to the new
> zerocopy_fill_skb_from_devmem which fills a TX skb with net_iov netmems
> instead of the traditional page netmems.
>
> We also special case skb_frag_dma_map to return the dma-address of these
> dmabuf net_iovs instead of attempting to map pages.
>
> The TX path may release the dmabuf in a context where we cannot wait.
> This happens when the user unbinds a TX dmabuf while there are still
> references to its netmems in the TX path. In that case, the netmems will
> be put_netmem'd from a context where we can't unmap the dmabuf, Resolve
> this by making __net_devmem_dmabuf_binding_free schedule_work'd.
>
> Based on work by Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>. A lot of the meat
> of the implementation came from devmem TCP RFC v1[1], which included the
> TX path, but Stan did all the rebasing on top of netmem/net_iov.
>
> Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kaiyuan Zhang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
I'm sorry for the late feedback. A bunch of things I did not notice
before...
> @@ -701,6 +743,8 @@ int __zerocopy_sg_from_iter(struct msghdr *msg, struct
> sock *sk,
>
> if (msg && msg->msg_ubuf && msg->sg_from_iter)
> ret = msg->sg_from_iter(skb, from, length);
> + else if (unlikely(binding))
I'm unsure if the unlikely() here (and in similar tests below) it's
worthy: depending on the actual workload this condition could be very
likely.
[...]
> @@ -1066,11 +1067,24 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t size)
> int flags, err, copied = 0;
> int mss_now = 0, size_goal, copied_syn = 0;
> int process_backlog = 0;
> + bool sockc_valid = true;
> int zc = 0;
> long timeo;
>
> flags = msg->msg_flags;
>
> + sockc = (struct sockcm_cookie){ .tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags),
> + .dmabuf_id = 0 };
the '.dmabuf_id = 0' part is not needed, and possibly the code is
clearer without it.
> + if (msg->msg_controllen) {
> + err = sock_cmsg_send(sk, msg, &sockc);
> + if (unlikely(err))
> + /* Don't return error until MSG_FASTOPEN has been
> + * processed; that may succeed even if the cmsg is
> + * invalid.
> + */
> + sockc_valid = false;
> + }
> +
> if ((flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY) && size) {
> if (msg->msg_ubuf) {
> uarg = msg->msg_ubuf;
> @@ -1078,7 +1092,8 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t size)
> zc = MSG_ZEROCOPY;
> } else if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {
> skb = tcp_write_queue_tail(sk);
> - uarg = msg_zerocopy_realloc(sk, size, skb_zcopy(skb));
> + uarg = msg_zerocopy_realloc(sk, size, skb_zcopy(skb),
> + sockc_valid &&
> !!sockc.dmabuf_id);
If sock_cmsg_send() failed and the user did not provide a dmabuf_id,
memory accounting will be incorrect.
> if (!uarg) {
> err = -ENOBUFS;
> goto out_err;
> @@ -1087,12 +1102,27 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t size)
> zc = MSG_ZEROCOPY;
> else
> uarg_to_msgzc(uarg)->zerocopy = 0;
> +
> + if (sockc_valid && sockc.dmabuf_id) {
> + binding = net_devmem_get_binding(sk,
> sockc.dmabuf_id);
> + if (IS_ERR(binding)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(binding);
> + binding = NULL;
> + goto out_err;
> + }
> + }
> }
> } else if (unlikely(msg->msg_flags & MSG_SPLICE_PAGES) && size) {
> if (sk->sk_route_caps & NETIF_F_SG)
> zc = MSG_SPLICE_PAGES;
> }
>
> + if (sockc_valid && sockc.dmabuf_id &&
> + (!(flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY) || !sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY))) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto out_err;
> + }
> +
> if (unlikely(flags & MSG_FASTOPEN ||
> inet_test_bit(DEFER_CONNECT, sk)) &&
> !tp->repair) {
> @@ -1131,14 +1161,8 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr
> *msg, size_t size)
> /* 'common' sending to sendq */
> }
>
> - sockc = (struct sockcm_cookie) { .tsflags = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_tsflags)};
> - if (msg->msg_controllen) {
> - err = sock_cmsg_send(sk, msg, &sockc);
> - if (unlikely(err)) {
> - err = -EINVAL;
> - goto out_err;
> - }
> - }
> + if (!sockc_valid)
> + goto out_err;
Here 'err' could have been zeroed by tcp_sendmsg_fastopen(), and out_err
could emit a wrong return value.
Possibly it's better to keep the 'dmabuf_id' initialization out of
sock_cmsg_send() in a separate helper could simplify the handling here?
/P
