Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] page_pool: fix IOMMU crash when driver has already unbound

[Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>]

On 2024/9/30 16:09, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sept 2024 at 05:44, Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024/9/28 15:34, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that wasn't very clear indeed, apologies for any confusion. I was
>>> trying to ask on a linked list that only lives in struct page_pool.
>>> But I now realize this was a bad idea since the lookup would be way
>>> slower.
>>>
>>>> If I understand question correctly, the single/doubly linked list
>>>> is more costly than array as the page_pool case as my understanding.
>>>>
>>>> For single linked list, it doesn't allow deleting a specific entry but
>>>> only support deleting the first entry and all the entries. It does support
>>>> lockless operation using llist, but have limitation as below:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/include/linux/llist.h#L13
>>>>
>>>> For doubly linked list, it needs two pointer to support deleting a specific
>>>> entry and it does not support lockless operation.
>>>
>>> I didn't look at the patch too carefully at first. Looking a bit
>>> closer now, the array is indeed better, since the lookup is faster.
>>> You just need the stored index in struct page to find the page we need
>>> to unmap. Do you remember if we can reduce the atomic pp_ref_count to
>>> 32bits? If so we can reuse that space for the index. Looking at it
>>
>> For 64 bits system, yes, we can reuse that.
>> But for 32 bits system, we may have only 16 bits for each of them, and it
>> seems that there is no atomic operation for variable that is less than 32
>> bits.
>>
>>> requires a bit more work in netmem, but that's mostly swapping all the
>>> atomic64 calls to atomic ones.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For pool->items, as the alloc side is protected by NAPI context, and the
>>>> free side use item->pp_idx to ensure there is only one producer for each
>>>> item, which means for each item in pool->items, there is only one consumer
>>>> and one producer, which seems much like the case when the page is not
>>>> recyclable in __page_pool_put_page, we don't need a lock protection when
>>>> calling page_pool_return_page(), the 'struct page' is also one consumer
>>>> and one producer as the pool->items[item->pp_idx] does:
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/net/core/page_pool.c#L645
>>>>
>>>> We only need a lock protection when page_pool_destroy() is called to
>>>> check if there is inflight page to be unmapped as a consumer, and the
>>>> __page_pool_put_page() may also called to unmapped the inflight page as
>>>> another consumer,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. On the locking side, page_pool_destroy is
>>> called once from the driver and then it's either the workqueue for
>>> inflight packets or an SKB that got freed and tried to recycle right?
>>> But do we still need to do all the unmapping etc from the delayed
>>> work? Since the new function will unmap all packets in
>>> page_pool_destroy, we can just skip unmapping when the delayed work
>>> runs
>>
>> Yes, the pool->dma_map is clear in page_pool_item_uninit() after it does
>> the unmapping for all inflight pages with the protection of pool->destroy_lock,
>> so that the unmapping is skipped in page_pool_return_page() when those inflight
>> pages are returned back to page_pool.
> 
> Ah yes, the entire destruction path is protected which seems correct.
> Instead of that WARN_ONCE in page_pool_item_uninit() can we instead
> check the number of inflight packets vs what we just unmapped? IOW
> check 'mask' against what page_pool_inflight() gives you and warn if
> those aren't equal.
Yes, it seems it is quite normal to trigger the warning from testing,
it makes sense to check it against page_pool_inflight() to catch some
bug of tracking/calculating inflight pages.

> 
> 
> Thanks
> /Ilias
>>
>>>