From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Cc: liuyonglong@huawei.com, fanghaiqing@huawei.com,
zhangkun09@huawei.com,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
IOMMU <iommu@lists.linux.dev>, MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 3/3] page_pool: skip dma sync operation for inflight pages
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 13:44:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a02c5976-e288-404e-b725-66bd4c391384@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57dea3ef-6982-4946-bf96-8ebadf6f883c@huawei.com>
On 21/11/2024 8:04 am, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2024/11/21 0:17, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 20/11/2024 10:34 am, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>> Skip dma sync operation for inflight pages before the
>>> page_pool_destroy() returns to the driver as DMA API
>>> expects to be called with a valid device bound to a
>>> driver as mentioned in [1].
>>>
>>> After page_pool_destroy() is called, the page is not
>>> expected to be recycled back to pool->alloc cache and
>>> dma sync operation is not needed when the page is not
>>> recyclable or pool->ring is full, so only skip the dma
>>> sync operation for the infilght pages by clearing the
>>> pool->dma_sync under protection of rcu lock when page
>>> is recycled to pool->ring to ensure that there is no
>>> dma sync operation called after page_pool_destroy() is
>>> returned.
>>
>> Something feels off here - either this is a micro-optimisation which I wouldn't really expect to be meaningful, or it means patch #2 doesn't actually do what it claims. If it really is possible to attempt to dma_sync a page *after* page_pool_inflight_unmap() has already reclaimed and unmapped it, that represents yet another DMA API lifecycle issue, which as well as being even more obviously incorrect usage-wise, could also still lead to the same crash (if the device is non-coherent).
>
> For a page_pool owned page, it mostly goes through the below steps:
> 1. page_pool calls buddy allocator API to allocate a page, call DMA mapping
> and sync_for_device API for it if its pool is empty. Or reuse the page in
> pool.
>
> 2. Driver calls the page_pool API to allocate the page, and pass the page
> to network stack after packet is dma'ed into the page and the sync_for_cpu
> API is called.
>
> 3. Network stack is done with page and called page_pool API to free the page.
>
> 4. page_pool releases the page back to buddy allocator if the page is not
> recyclable before doing the dma unmaping. Or do the sync_for_device
> and put the page in the its pool, the page might go through step 1
> again if the driver calls the page_pool allocate API.
>
> The calling of dma mapping and dma sync API is controlled by pool->dma_map
> and pool->dma_sync respectively, the previous patch only clear pool->dma_map
> after doing the dma unmapping. This patch ensures that there is no dma_sync
> for recycle case of step 4 by clearing pool->dma_sync.
But *why* does it want to ensure that? Is there some possible race where
one thread can attempt to sync and recycle a page while another thread
is attempting to unmap and free it, such that you can't guarantee the
correctness of dma_sync calls after page_pool_inflight_unmap() has
started, and skipping them is a workaround for that? If so, then frankly
I think that would want solving properly, but at the very least this
change would need to come before patch #2.
If not, and this is just some attempt at performance micro-optimisation,
then I'd be keen to see the numbers to justify it, since I struggle to
imagine it being worth the bother while already in the process of
spending whole seconds scanning memory...
Thanks,
Robin.
> The dma_sync skipping should also happen before page_pool_inflight_unmap()
> is called too because all the caller will see the clearing of pool->dma_sync
> after synchronize_rcu() and page_pool_inflight_unmap() is called after
> the same synchronize_rcu() in page_pool_destroy().
>
>>
>> Otherwise, I don't imagine it's really worth worrying about optimising out syncs for any pages which happen to get naturally returned after page_pool_destroy() starts but before they're explicitly reclaimed. Realistically, the kinds of big server systems where reclaim takes an appreciable amount of time are going to be coherent and skipping syncs anyway.
>
> The skipping is about skipping the dma sync for those inflight pages,
> I should make it clearer that the skipping happens before the calling
> of page_pool_inflight_unmap() instead of page_pool_destroy() in the
> commit log.
>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-21 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-20 10:34 [PATCH RFC v4 0/3] fix two bugs related to page_pool Yunsheng Lin
2024-11-20 10:34 ` [PATCH RFC v4 3/3] page_pool: skip dma sync operation for inflight pages Yunsheng Lin
2024-11-20 16:17 ` Robin Murphy
2024-11-21 8:04 ` Yunsheng Lin
2024-11-21 13:44 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2024-11-22 7:20 ` Yunsheng Lin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a02c5976-e288-404e-b725-66bd4c391384@arm.com \
--to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fanghaiqing@huawei.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
--cc=liuyonglong@huawei.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=zhangkun09@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox