On 6/7/24 17:59, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:47 AM Pavel Begunkov 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
for returning buffers might even be a nuisance.
--
Pavel Begunkov
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
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
On 6/5/24 09:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 03:52:32PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
The question for Christoph is what exactly is the objection here? Why we
would not be using well defined ops when we know there will be more
users?
The point is that there should
On 6/3/24 16:43, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:52 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 6/3/24 15:17, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:35 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 08:16:01PM +, Mina Almasry wrote:
I'm unsure if the discussion has been
quot; in the ring buffer is useless.
netmem is a pointer with one bit serving as a flag, considering
mangling it might be better to %p it and perhaps also print its
type (page* vs iov) separately.
--
Pavel Begunkov
ol_is_dmabuf(pool)))
+ netmem = mp_dmabuf_devmem_alloc_pages():
else
netmem = __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow(pool, gfp);
return netmem;
--
Pavel Begunkov
art)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+ DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!rtnl_is_locked());
--
Pavel Begunkov
if not, I can look into squashing some fix.
Let it be this way then. It's not a problem while there is
only one such a provider.
--
Pavel Begunkov
On 5/8/24 16:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 12:35:52PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
all these, because e.g. ttm internally does have a page pool because
depending upon allocator, that's indeed beneficial. Other drm drivers have
more buffer-based concepts
On 5/8/24 16:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:44:32PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
like a weird and indirect way to get there. Why can't io_uring just be
the entity that does the final free and not mess with the logic
allocator?
Then the user has to do a syscall (e.g
On 5/8/24 15:25, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 12:30:07PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
I'm not going to pretend to know about page pool details, but dmabuf
is the way to get the bulk of pages into a pool within the net stack's
allocator and keep that bulk properly refcounted
On 5/8/24 08:16, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:32:47PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:35:37PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 5/7/24 18:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 5/7/24 17:48
On 5/8/24 00:32, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 08:35:37PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 5/7/24 18:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 5/7/24 17:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:42:05AM -0700
On 5/7/24 18:56, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 5/7/24 17:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 09:42:05AM -0700, Mina Almasry wrote:
1. Align with devmem TCP to use udmabuf for your io_uring memory. I
think in the past
On 5/7/24 18:15, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:55 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 5/7/24 17:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:18:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:05:12PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
even in tree if you give them
mandate uapi change in a not
desirable way.
--
Pavel Begunkov
On 5/7/24 17:42, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:24 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:18:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:05:12PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
even in tree if you give them enough rope, and they should not have
On 5/7/24 17:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:18:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 05:05:12PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
even in tree if you give them enough rope, and they should not have
that rope when the only sensible options are page/folio
e branches for page based vs dmabuf in a few places.
--
Pavel Begunkov
do here or if something more appropriate to be in the patches you
apply on top.
I additionally think you may also need to run the
page_pool_benchmark_simple tests like I do in the cover letter to see
if you're affecting those.
--
Pavel Begunkov
On 3/6/24 21:59, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:14 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 3/6/24 17:04, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:30 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 3/5/24 22:36, Mina Almasry wrote:
...
To be honest, I think it makes sense for the TCP stack
On 3/6/24 17:04, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:30 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 3/5/24 22:36, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Wei wrote:
On 2024-03-04 18:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
+struct memory_provider_ops {
+ int (*init)(struct page_pool *pool
provider_params;
struct netdev_rx_queue {
...
struct pp_provider_params *pp_params;
};
--
Pavel Begunkov
step 4 in the meantime. Might change, can be useful, but it
was much easier to hook into the pp release loop.
Another concern is who and when can reset ifq / kill pp outside
of io_uring/devmem. I assume it can happen on a whim, which is
hard to handle gracefully.
--
Pavel Begunkov
On 2/13/24 21:11, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:28 AM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
...
A bit of a churn with the padding and nesting net_iov but looks
sturdier. No duplication, and you can just check positions of the
structure instead of per-field NET_IOV_ASSERT_OFFSET, which you
_SYMBOL(dmabuf_devmem_ops);
It might make sense to move all these functions together with
new code from core/dev.c into a new file
--
Pavel Begunkov
net_iov niov;
};
};
...
--
Pavel Begunkov
uld have been niov->dma_addr
+}
+
+static inline struct netdev_dmabuf_binding *
+net_iov_binding(const struct net_iov *niov)
+{
+ return net_iov_owner(niov)->binding;
+}
+
/* netmem */
struct netmem {
...
--
Pavel Begunkov
On 12/14/23 20:03, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:37 PM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
...
If you remove the branch, let it fall into ->release and rely
on refcounting there, then the callback could also fix up
release_cnt or ask pp to do it, like in the patch I linked above
Sadl
On 12/11/23 02:30, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:05 PM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 12/8/23 23:25, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:56 PM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 12/8/23 00:52, Mina Almasry wrote:
...
+ if (pool->p.queue)
+ binding = READ_O
On 12/8/23 23:25, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:56 PM Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 12/8/23 00:52, Mina Almasry wrote:
...
+ if (pool->p.queue)
+ binding = READ_ONCE(pool->p.queue->binding);
+
+ if (binding) {
+ pool->mp_ops =
page_pool_iov(page))
+ return (struct page_pool_iov *)((unsigned long)page & ~PP_IOV);
+
+ DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(true);
+ return NULL;
+}
+
/**
* page_pool_dev_alloc_pages() - allocate a page.
* @pool: pool from which to allocate
--
Pavel Begunkov
estroy= mp_dmabuf_devmem_destroy,
+ .alloc_pages= mp_dmabuf_devmem_alloc_pages,
+ .release_page = mp_dmabuf_devmem_release_page,
+};
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(dmabuf_devmem_ops);
--
Pavel Begunkov
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
the RX ring" behaviour even with TCP sockets.
--
Pavel Begunkov
rly optimised, and we can't use it with some
important features like multishot recv because of cmsg.
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
On 11/11/23 17:19, David Ahern wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:26 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 11/7/23 23:03, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 2:55 PM David Ahern wrote:
On 11/7/23 3:10 PM, Mina Almasry wrote:
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:44 PM David Ahern wrote:
On 11/5/23 7:44 PM, Mina
patch set can work with any memory; only device
memory is unreadable.
--
Pavel Begunkov
to look into the
details deeper.
Overall I like the intent and possibilities for extensions, but a lot of
details are missing - perhaps some are answered by seeing an end-to-end
implementation.
--
Pavel Begunkov
41 matches
Mail list logo
