Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/13] mm: page_frag: use initial zero offset for page_frag_alloc_align()

[Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>]

On 2024/7/3 0:00, Alexander Duyck wrote:

...

>>>> +
>>>> +    offset = __ALIGN_KERNEL_MASK(nc->offset, ~align_mask);
>>>> +    if (unlikely(offset + fragsz > size)) {
>>>
>>> The fragsz check below could be moved to here.
>>>
>>>>              page = virt_to_page(nc->va);
>>>>
>>>>              if (!page_ref_sub_and_test(page, nc->pagecnt_bias))
>>>> @@ -99,17 +100,13 @@ void *__page_frag_alloc_align(struct page_frag_cache *nc,
>>>>                      goto refill;
>>>>              }
>>>>
>>>> -#if (PAGE_SIZE < PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE)
>>>> -            /* if size can vary use size else just use PAGE_SIZE */
>>>> -            size = nc->size;
>>>> -#endif
>>>>              /* OK, page count is 0, we can safely set it */
>>>>              set_page_count(page, PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE + 1);
>>>>
>>>>              /* reset page count bias and offset to start of new frag */
>>>>              nc->pagecnt_bias = PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE + 1;
>>>> -            offset = size - fragsz;
>>>> -            if (unlikely(offset < 0)) {
>>>> +            offset = 0;
>>>> +            if (unlikely(fragsz > PAGE_SIZE)) {
>>>
>>> Since we aren't taking advantage of the flag that is left after the
>>> subtraction we might just want to look at moving this piece up to just
>>> after the offset + fragsz check. That should prevent us from trying to
>>> refill if we have a request that is larger than a single page. In
>>> addition we could probably just drop the 3 PAGE_SIZE checks above as
>>> they would be redundant.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand the 'drop the 3 PAGE_SIZE checks' part and
>> the 'redundant' part, where is the '3 PAGE_SIZE checks'? And why they
>> are redundant?
> 
> I was referring to the addition of the checks for align > PAGE_SIZE in
> the alloc functions at the start of this diff. I guess I had dropped
> them from the first half of it with the "...". Also looking back
> through the patch you misspelled "avoid" as "aovid".
> 
> The issue is there is a ton of pulling things forward that don't
> necessarily make sense into these diffs. Now that I have finished
> looking through the set I have a better idea of why those are there
> and they might make sense. It is just difficult to review since code
> is being added for things that aren't applicable to the patch being
> reviewed.

As you mentioned in other thread, perhaps the 'remaining' changing does
need to be incorporated into this patch.

> .
>