From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF24C433EF for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9237E610C7 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:38:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 9237E610C7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 013E96B006C; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id EDF536B0071; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:38:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id DA7E7900002; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:38:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0031.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.31]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFCC6B006C for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6DC180ACF84 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:38:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78686982696.19.58B64AD Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6161B300E540 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dggemv711-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HT6v021wXz8tWb; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:37:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) by dggemv711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:38:21 +0800 Received: from [10.69.30.204] (10.69.30.204) by dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:38:15 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next -v5 3/4] mm: introduce __get_page() and __put_page() To: Ilias Apalodimas , Jesper Dangaard Brouer CC: John Hubbard , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20211009093724.10539-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <20211009093724.10539-4-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <62106771-7d2a-3897-c318-79578360a88a@nvidia.com> <89bcc42a-ad95-e729-0748-bf394bf770be@redhat.com> From: Yunsheng Lin Message-ID: <3bba942e-eefd-7ac2-7a8c-b6c349641dd4@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:38:15 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.69.30.204] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.98) To dggpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.74) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6161B300E540 X-Stat-Signature: yzud9eok7ji9n46f3pxz6wngz8aw7q3e Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of linyunsheng@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.189 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linyunsheng@huawei.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-HE-Tag: 1634024307-503869 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2021/10/11 20:29, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: >> >> >> On 09/10/2021 21.49, John Hubbard wrote: >>> So in case it's not clear, I'd like to request that you drop this one >>> patch from your series. >> >> In my opinion as page_pool maintainer, you should also drop patch 4/4 from >> this series. >> >> I like the first two patches, and they should be resend and can be applied >> without too much further discussion. > > +1 Ok, it seems there is a lot of contention about how to avoid calling compound_head() now. Will send out the uncontroversial one first. > That's what I hinted on the previous version. The patches right now go way > beyond the spec of page pool. We are starting to change core networking > functions and imho we need a lot more people involved in this discussion, > than the ones participating already. > > As a general note and the reason I am so hesitant, is that we are starting > to violate layers here (at least in my opinion). When the recycling was > added, my main concern was to keep the network stack unaware (apart from > the skb bit). Now suddenly we need to teach frag_ref/unref internal page Maybe the skb recycle bit is a clever way to avoid dealing with the network stack directly. But that bit might also introduce or hide some problem, like the data race as pointed out by Alexander, and the odd using of page pool in mlx5 driver. > pool counters and that doesn't feel right. We first need to prove the race > can actually happen, before starting to change things. As the network stack is adding a lot of performance improvement, such as sockmap for BPF, which may cause problem for them, will dig more to prove that. > > Regards > /Ilias >> >> --Jesper >> > . >