Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

2023-11-07 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:44 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that > > > > > > it somehow implies that

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

2023-11-06 Thread Willem de Bruijn
> > > > I think my other issue with MSG_SOCK_DEVMEM being on recvmsg is that > > > > it somehow implies that I have an option of passing or not passing it > > > > for an individual system call. > > > > If we know that we're going to use dmabuf with the socket, maybe we > > > > should move this

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 09/12] net: add support for skbs with unreadable frags

2023-11-06 Thread Willem de Bruijn
t; > > > > > > > >> Add a skb->devmem flag which indicates whether the frags in > > > > > > > >> this skb > > > > > > > >> are device memory frags or not. > > > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

2023-11-06 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 3:55 PM David Ahern wrote: > > On 11/6/23 4:32 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > >> The concise notification API returns tokens as a range for > >> compression, encoding as two 32-bit unsigned integers start + length. > >> It allows for even further batching by returning

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

2023-11-06 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 2:34 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 11/06, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > > IMHO, we need a better UAPI to receive the tokens and give them back to > > > > the kernel. CMSG + setsockopt(SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED) get the job done, &g

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/12] tcp: RX path for devmem TCP

2023-11-06 Thread Willem de Bruijn
> > IMHO, we need a better UAPI to receive the tokens and give them back to > > the kernel. CMSG + setsockopt(SO_DEVMEM_DONTNEED) get the job done, > > but look dated and hacky :-( > > > > We should either do some kind of user/kernel shared memory queue to > > receive/return the tokens (similar to

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] page-pool: add device memory support

2023-08-21 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 5:31 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:12:16 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > :-) For the record, there is a prior version that added a separate type. > > > > I did not like the churn it brought and asked for this. > >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] page-pool: add device memory support

2023-08-19 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 11:49 AM David Ahern wrote: > > On 8/19/23 9:22 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > I do see the problem of depending on having a struct page, as the > > page_pool_iov isn't related to struct page. Having "page" in the name > > of "page_pool_iov" is also confusing

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] page-pool: add device memory support

2023-08-19 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 5:51 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > On 10/08/2023 03.57, Mina Almasry wrote: > > Overload the LSB of struct page* to indicate that it's a page_pool_iov. > > > > Refactor mm calls on struct page * into helpers, and add page_pool_iov > > handling on those helpers.

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] page-pool: add device memory support

2023-08-19 Thread Willem de Bruijn
> > Any regression in page pool can be avoided in the common case that > > does not use device mem by placing that behind a static_branch. Would > > that address your performance concerns? > > > > No. This will not help. > > The problem is that every where in the page_pool code it is getting >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/11] Device Memory TCP

2023-08-16 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:38 AM David Laight wrote: > > From: Mina Almasry > > Sent: 10 August 2023 02:58 > ... > > * TL;DR: > > > > Device memory TCP (devmem TCP) is a proposal for transferring data to and/or > > from device memory efficiently, without bouncing the data to a host memory > >

Re: general protection fault in veth_get_stats64

2019-10-04 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 5:45 PM syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > syzbot found the following crash on: > > HEAD commit:a32db7e1 Add linux-next specific files for 20191002 > git tree: linux-next > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=175ab7cd60 > kernel config:

Re: general protection fault in veth_get_stats64

2019-10-02 Thread Willem de Bruijn
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:56 PM syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > syzbot found the following crash on: > > HEAD commit:a32db7e1 Add linux-next specific files for 20191002 > git tree: linux-next > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=175ab7cd60 > kernel config: