[RFC PATCH net-next v6 09/15] memory-provider: dmabuf devmem memory provider

[Mina Almasry]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:47 PM David Wei <dw at davidwei.uk> wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-05 18:42, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:28 PM David Wei <dw at davidwei.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2024-03-04 18:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
> >>> +     if (pool->p.queue)
> >>> +             binding = READ_ONCE(pool->p.queue->binding);
> >>> +
> >>> +     if (binding) {
> >>> +             pool->mp_ops = &dmabuf_devmem_ops;
> >>> +             pool->mp_priv = binding;
> >>> +     }
> >>
> >> This is specific to TCP devmem. For ZC Rx we will need something more
> >> generic to let us pass our own memory provider backend down to the page
> >> pool.
> >>
> >> What about storing ops and priv void ptr in struct netdev_rx_queue
> >> instead? Then we can both use it.
> >
> > Yes, this is dmabuf specific, I was thinking you'd define your own
> > member of netdev_rx_queue, and then add something like this to
> > page_pool_init:
> >
> > +       if (pool->p.queue)
> > +               io_uring_metadata = READ_ONCE(pool->p.queue->io_uring_metadata);
> > +
> > +       /* We don't support rx-queues that are configured for both
> > io_uring & dmabuf binding */
> > +       BUG_ON(io_uring_metadata && binding);
> > +
> > +       if (io_uring_metadata) {
> > +               pool->mp_ops = &io_uring_ops;
> > +               pool->mp_priv = io_uring_metadata;
> > +       }
> >
> > I.e., we share the pool->mp_ops and the pool->mp_priv but we don't
> > really need to share the same netdev_rx_queue member. For me it's a
> > dma-buf specific data structure (netdev_dmabuf_binding) and for you
> > it's something else.
>
> This adds size to struct netdev_rx_queue and requires checks on whether
> both are set. There can be thousands of these structs at any one time so
> if we don't need to add size unnecessarily then that would be best.
>
> We can disambiguate by comparing &mp_ops and then cast the void ptr to
> our impl specific objects.
>
> What do you not like about this approach?
>

I was thinking it leaks page_pool specifics into a generic struct
unrelated to the page pool like netdev_rx_queue. My mental model is
that the rx-queue just says that it's bound to a dma-buf/io_uring
unaware of page_pool internals, and the page pool internals figure out
what to do from there.

Currently netdev_rx_queue.h doesn't include net/page_pool/types.h for
example because there is no dependency between netdev_rx_queue &
page_pool, I think this change would add a dependency.

But I concede it does not matter much AFAICT, I can certainly change
the netdev_rx_queue to hold the mp_priv & mp_ops directly and include
net/page_pool/types.h if you prefer that. I'll look into applying this
change in the next iteration if there are no objections.

> >
> > page_pool_init() probably needs to validate that the queue is
> > configured for dma-buf or io_uring but not both. If it's configured
> > for both then the user is doing something funky we shouldn't support.
> >
> > Perhaps I can make the intention clearer by renaming 'binding' to
> > something more specific to dma-buf like queue->dmabuf_binding, to make
> > it clear that this is the dma-buf binding and not some other binding
> > like io_uring?
> >



-- 
Thanks,
Mina