Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, <linuxarm@openeuler.org>,
	<yisen.zhuang@huawei.com>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>,
	<thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	<hawk@kernel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>, <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
	<guro@fb.com>, <peterx@redhat.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	<mcroce@microsoft.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>, <wenxu@ucloud.cn>,
	<cong.wang@bytedance.com>, Kevin Hao <haokexin@gmail.com>,
	<nogikh@google.com>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/2] page_pool: add page recycling support based on elevated refcnt
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 10:27:31 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36a46c57-0090-8f3b-a358-ebbb2512e4cd@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgT0UcGDYcuZRXX1MaFAzzBySu3R4_TSdC6S0cyS7Ppt_dNng@mail.gmail.com>

On 2021/7/7 23:01, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 8:05 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/7/7 4:45, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:19 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Currently page pool only support page recycling only when
>>>> refcnt of page is one, which means it can not support the
>>>> split page recycling implemented in the most ethernet driver.
>>>>
>>>> So add elevated refcnt support in page pool, and support
>>>> allocating page frag to enable multi-frames-per-page based
>>>> on the elevated refcnt support.
>>>>
>>>> As the elevated refcnt is per page, and there is no space
>>>> for that in "struct page" now, so add a dynamically allocated
>>>> "struct page_pool_info" to record page pool ptr and refcnt
>>>> corrsponding to a page for now. Later, we can recycle the
>>>> "struct page_pool_info" too, or use part of page memory to
>>>> record pp_info.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
>>
>> Hi, Alexander
>>
>> Thanks for detailed reviewing.
>>
>>>
>>> So this isn't going to work with the current recycling logic. The
>>> expectation there is that we can safely unmap the entire page as soon
>>> as the reference count is greater than 1.
>>
>> Yes, the expectation is changed to we can always recycle the page
>> when the last user has dropped the refcnt that has given to it when
>> the page is not pfmemalloced.
>>
>> The above expectation is based on that the last user will always
>> call page_pool_put_full_page() in order to do the recycling or do
>> the resource cleanup(dma unmaping..etc).
>>
>> As the skb_free_head() and skb_release_data() have both checked the
>> skb->pp_recycle to call the page_pool_put_full_page() if needed, I
>> think we are safe for most case, the one case I am not so sure above
>> is the rx zero copy, which seems to also bump up the refcnt before
>> mapping the page to user space, we might need to ensure rx zero copy
>> is not the last user of the page or if it is the last user, make sure
>> it calls page_pool_put_full_page() too.
> 
> Yes, but the skb->pp_recycle value is per skb, not per page. So my
> concern is that carrying around that value can be problematic as there
> are a number of possible cases where the pages might be
> unintentionally recycled. All it would take is for a packet to get
> cloned a few times and then somebody starts using pskb_expand_head and
> you would have multiple cases, possibly simultaneously, of entities
> trying to free the page. I just worry it opens us up to a number of
> possible races.

I think page_ref_dec_return() in page_pool_bias_page_recyclable() will
prevent the above race to happen.

As the page_ref_dec_return() and page_pool_bias_page_recyclable() return
true, all user of the page have done with the p->pp_magic and p->pp_info,
so it should be ok to reset the p->pp_magic and p->pp_info in any order?

And page_ref_dec_return() has both __atomic_pre_full_fence() and
__atomic_post_full_fence() to ensure the above ordering.

> 
>>>
>>> In addition I think I need to look over that code better as I am
>>> wondering if there are potential issues assuming a path such as a
>>> skb_clone followed by pskb_expand_head may lead to memory corruptions
>>> since the clone will still have pp_recycle set but none of the pages
>>> will be part of the page pool anymore.
>>
>> There is still page->pp_magic that decides if the page is from
>> page_pool or not.
> 
> The problem with pp_magic is that it doesn't prevent races. The page
> pool code was meant to be protected by NAPI to prevent simultaneous
> access. With us now allowing the stack to be a part of the handling we
> open things up to potential races in the code.

As above.

> 
>>>
>>> For us the pagecnt_bias would really represent the number of
>>> additional mappings beyond the current page that are being held. I
>>> have already been playing around with something similar. However the
>>> general idea is that we want to keep track of how many references to
>>> the page the device is holding onto. When that hits 0 and the actual
>>> page count is 1 we can refill both, however if we hit 0 and there are
>>> multiple references to the page still floating around we should just
>>> unmap the page and turn it over to the stack or free it.
>>
>> I am not sure I understood the above.
> 
> As I have already mentioned, the fundamental problem with sharing a
> page and using the page pool is that the page pool assumes that it can
> unmap if it has a reference count greater than 0. That will no longer
> be the case. It has to wait until all of the pagecnt_bias has been
> cleared before it can unmap the page. Using get_page/put_page is fine
> since it will have no impact on the DMA mappings, but we have to hold
> off on calling things like page_pool_put_full_page or update it so
> that it will not unmap as long as there is still pagecnt_bias in
> place.

Actually pagecnt_bias is never clear when the page is in use or is still
recyclable, and DMA unmapping is only done when page is not in use and
and the page is not recyclable(page is from pf_memealloced or pool->ring
is full).

The page_pool_bias_page_recyclable() is used to decide whether there is
user using the page, if there is still other user using the page, current
user calling the page_pool_bias_page_recyclable() just do a ref_dec and
return, it is only the last user calling the page_pool_bias_page_recyclable()
will do the DMA unmapping if the page is not recyclable.

> 
>> As page reusing in hns3 driver, pagecnt_bias means how many refcnt the
>> driver is holding, and (page_count(cb->priv) - pagecnt_bias) means how
>> many refcnt the stack is holding, see [1].
>>
>> static bool hns3_can_reuse_page(struct hns3_desc_cb *cb)
>> {
>>         return (page_count(cb->priv) - cb->pagecnt_bias) == 1;
>> }
> 
> So one thing we have to be careful of is letting the page_count hit 0.
> My preference is to keep the bias as one less than the total
> page_count so that we always have the 1 around. So if pagecnt_bias
> hits 0 and we have a page_count of 1 it means that the current thread
> owns the only reference to the page.
> 
>> checking (page_count(cb->priv) - cb->pagecnt_bias) again one instead
>> of zero is in hns3_can_reuse_page because there is "pagecnt_bias--"
>> before checking hns3_can_reuse_page() in hns3_nic_reuse_page().
>>
>> "pagecnt_bias--" means the driver gives the one of its refcnt to the
>> stack, it is the stack'job to release the refcnt when the skb is passed
>> to the stack.
>>
>> 1. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_enet.c#L2870
> 
> It is mostly just a matter of preference. As long as the difference is
> a predictable value it can be worked with.
> 
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c           |   6 +-
>>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c |   2 +-
>>>>  include/linux/mm_types.h                        |   2 +-
>>>>  include/linux/skbuff.h                          |   4 +-
>>>>  include/net/page_pool.h                         |  30 +++-
>>>>  net/core/page_pool.c                            | 215 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>  6 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
>>>> index 88a7550..5a29af2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
>>>> @@ -2327,7 +2327,7 @@ mvneta_swbm_build_skb(struct mvneta_port *pp, struct page_pool *pool,
>>>>         if (!skb)
>>>>                 return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>>
>>>> -       skb_mark_for_recycle(skb, virt_to_page(xdp->data), pool);
>>>> +       skb_mark_for_recycle(skb);
>>>>
>>>>         skb_reserve(skb, xdp->data - xdp->data_hard_start);
>>>>         skb_put(skb, xdp->data_end - xdp->data);
>>>> @@ -2339,10 +2339,6 @@ mvneta_swbm_build_skb(struct mvneta_port *pp, struct page_pool *pool,
>>>>                 skb_add_rx_frag(skb, skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags,
>>>>                                 skb_frag_page(frag), skb_frag_off(frag),
>>>>                                 skb_frag_size(frag), PAGE_SIZE);
>>>> -               /* We don't need to reset pp_recycle here. It's already set, so
>>>> -                * just mark fragments for recycling.
>>>> -                */
>>>> -               page_pool_store_mem_info(skb_frag_page(frag), pool);
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>         return skb;
>>>
>>> So as I mentioned earlier the problem with recycling is that splitting
>>> up the ownership of the page makes it difficult for us to clean it up.
>>> Technically speaking if the pages are being allowed to leave while
>>> holding references to DMA addresses that we cannot revoke then we
>>> should be holding references to the device.
>>>
>>> That is one of the reasons why the previous code was just clearing the
>>> mapping as soon as the refcount was greater than 1. However for this
>>> to work out correctly we would have to track how many DMA mappings we
>>> have outstanding in addition to the one we are working on currently.
>>
>> I think page pool has already handled the above case if I understand
>> correctly, see page_pool_release().
> 
> The problem is pagecnt_bias is not multi-thread safe. You are just
> accessing an int which is prone to races. In order to fix it you would
> need to add either an atomic count or locks around the access of it
> which would pretty much negate the point of it.

As pagecnt_bias being not multi-thread safe, let's get back to it
later.

> 
> Really in terms of the page pool recycling code I think it would have
> made more sense to add the page pool release logic as an skb
> destructor rather than trying to embed the page pool into the page
> itself. At least with that if the device is going to go out of scope
> by being orphaned or the like we could unmap the page and avoid
> potential races.

I suppose it is not the netdev relevant here, it is the "struct device"
relevant here, right?

I suppose the page_ref_dec_return() and get_device(pool->p.dev) in
page_pool_init() is able to avoid the above race, as the unmaping
is done after page_ref_dec_return()?

> 
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
>>>> index 3135220..540e387 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
>>>> @@ -3997,7 +3997,7 @@ static int mvpp2_rx(struct mvpp2_port *port, struct napi_struct *napi,
>>>>                 }
>>>>
>>>>                 if (pp)
>>>> -                       skb_mark_for_recycle(skb, page, pp);
>>>> +                       skb_mark_for_recycle(skb);
>>>>                 else
>>>>                         dma_unmap_single_attrs(dev->dev.parent, dma_addr,
>>>>                                                bm_pool->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE,
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>>> index 862f88a..cf613df 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>>>> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ struct page {
>>>>                          * page_pool allocated pages.
>>>>                          */
>>>>                         unsigned long pp_magic;
>>>> -                       struct page_pool *pp;
>>>> +                       struct page_pool_info *pp_info;
>>>>                         unsigned long _pp_mapping_pad;
>>>>                         /**
>>>>                          * @dma_addr: might require a 64-bit value on
>>>
>>> So the problem here is that this is creating a pointer chase, and the
>>> need to allocate yet another structure to store it is going to be
>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> As far as storing the pagecnt_bias it might make more sense to
>>> repurpose the lower 12 bits of the dma address. A DMA mapping should
>>> be page aligned anyway so the lower 12 bits would be reserved 0. When
>>> we decrement the value so that the lower 12 bits are 0 we should be
>>> unmapping the page anyway, or resetting the pagecnt_bias to PAGE_SIZE
>>> - 1 and adding back the bias to the page to effectively reset it for
>>> reuse.
>>
>> Yes, that is a great idea. I like it very much supposing page refcnt
>> updating batching for 'PAGE_SIZE - 1" is enough for performance sake.
>>
>> Will take a look about it.
>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
>>>> index b2db9cd..7795979 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
>>>> @@ -4711,11 +4711,9 @@ static inline u64 skb_get_kcov_handle(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
>>>> -static inline void skb_mark_for_recycle(struct sk_buff *skb, struct page *page,
>>>> -                                       struct page_pool *pp)
>>>> +static inline void skb_mark_for_recycle(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>  {
>>>>         skb->pp_recycle = 1;
>>>> -       page_pool_store_mem_info(page, pp);
>>>>  }
>>>>  #endif
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of the pp_recycle flag either. We duplicate it via
>>> skb_clone and from what I can tell if we call pskb_expand_head
>>> afterwards I don't see how we avoid recycling the page frags twice.
>>
>> Acctually skb->pp_recycle is kind of duplicated, as there is
>> still page->pp_magic to avoid recycling the page frags twice.
>>
>> The argument above adding skb->pp_recycle seems to be short
>> cut code path for non-page_pool case in the previous disscusion,
>> see [2].
>>
>> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/074b0d1d-9531-57f3-8e0e-a447387478d1@huawei.com/
> 
> Yes, but that doesn't guarantee atomic protections so you still have
> race conditions possible. All it takes is something stalling during
> the dma_unamp call. Worse yet from what I can tell it looks like you
> clear page->pp before you clear page->pp_magic so you have the
> potential for a NULL pointer issue since it is cleared before the
> pp_magic value is.

Hopefully the page_ref_dec_return() in page_pool_bias_page_recyclable()
called by page_pool_put_page() will make the order of page->pp_magic
clearing and page->pp clearing irrelevant?

> 
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/net/page_pool.h b/include/net/page_pool.h
>>>> index 3dd62dd..44e7545 100644
>>>> --- a/include/net/page_pool.h
>>>> +++ b/include/net/page_pool.h
>>>> @@ -45,7 +45,9 @@
>>>>                                         * Please note DMA-sync-for-CPU is still
>>>>                                         * device driver responsibility
>>>>                                         */
>>>> -#define PP_FLAG_ALL            (PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP | PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV)
>>>> +#define PP_FLAG_PAGECNT_BIAS   BIT(2)  /* Enable elevated refcnt */
>>>> +#define PP_FLAG_ALL            (PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP | PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV |\
>>>> +                                PP_FLAG_PAGECNT_BIAS)
>>>>
>>>>  /*
>>>
>>> It might be better to just put each flag on a seperate line for
>>> PP_FLAG_ALL just to make it easier to read due to the wrapping. Either
>>> that or you could look at converting this over to an enum with a MAX
>>> value and then define the flags based on those enums, and PP_FLAG_ALL
>>> being BIT(MAX) - 1.
>>
>> Will do the wrapping first:)
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>>>
>>>>   * Fast allocation side cache array/stack
>>>> @@ -77,6 +79,7 @@ struct page_pool_params {
>>>>         enum dma_data_direction dma_dir; /* DMA mapping direction */
>>>>         unsigned int    max_len; /* max DMA sync memory size */
>>>>         unsigned int    offset;  /* DMA addr offset */
>>>> +       unsigned int    frag_size;
>>>>  };
>>>>
>>>>  struct page_pool {
>>>> @@ -88,6 +91,8 @@ struct page_pool {
>>>>         unsigned long defer_warn;
>>>>
>>>>         u32 pages_state_hold_cnt;
>>>> +       unsigned int frag_offset;
>>>> +       struct page *frag_page;
>>>>
>>>>         /*
>>>>          * Data structure for allocation side
>>>> @@ -128,6 +133,11 @@ struct page_pool {
>>>>         u64 destroy_cnt;
>>>>  };
>>>>
>>>> +struct page_pool_info {
>>>> +       struct page_pool *pp;
>>>> +       int pagecnt_bias;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Rather than having a top-down structure here it might be better to
>>> work bottom up. If you assume you are keeping a pagecnt_bias per page
>>> it might make more sense to store this in the driver somewhere rather
>>> than having it as a separate allocated buffer. One advantage of the
>>> Intel drivers was doing this as we had the pagecnt_bias in a structure
>>> that also pointed to the page. That way we were only updating that
>>> count if we dropped the page and didn't have to even touch the page.
>>> You could use that to batch updates to the pagecnt_bias if we did use
>>> the lower 12 bits of the DMA address to store it as well.
>>
>> I am not sure I understood what "we dropped the page" meant.
> 
> For XDP_DROP if we are dropping the buffer we are dropping the page
> which in our case means we just need to increment the pagecnt_bias
> indicating we are putting it back and don't have to do anything with
> the actual page refcount or struct.

In that case, the driver not doing a page_pool_put_page() seems enough
and reuse the page frag again?

It seems to like the usecase as below in hns3 driver? If all the buffer
has memcpy the head page, just reuse it.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_enet.c#L3149

> 
>> The driver does not really need to call page_pool_put_full_page()
>> if the page of a skb is passed to stack, the driver mainly call
>> page_pool_put_full_page() when unloading or uniniting when the page
>> is not passed to stack yet.
> 
> I was thinking mostly of something like XDP_TX cases when combined
> with the pagecnt_bias. You will need to have something to return the
> page to the pool after the XDP_TX is completed.

I suppose XDP_TX is aware of page pool to call page_pool_put_full_page()
when XDP_TX is completed now?

I suppose the above should be handled as similar as the non-elevated refcnt
case?

> 
>>> I'm assuming the idea with this is that you will be having multiple
>>> buffers received off of a single page and so doing it that way you
>>> should only have one update on allocation, maybe a trickle of updates
>>> for XDP_TX, and another large update when the page is fully consumed
>>> and you drop the remaining pagecnt_bias for Rx.
>>
>> I suppose "having multiple buffers received off of a single page" mean:
>> use first half of a page for a desc, and the second half of the same page
>> for another desc, intead of ping-pong way of reusing implemented in most
>> driver currently?
>>
>> I am not so familiar with XDP to understand the latter part of comment too.
> 
> The alloc_frag logic below is an example of what I am talking about.
> Basically taking a page and chopping it up into multiple pieces for
> use as multiple receives instead of just one receive.

Ok, but when multiple receives is passed to the stack and after the stack is
done with all the receives, we should be able to recycle the page, right?

> 
>>>
>>>>  struct page *page_pool_alloc_pages(struct page_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp);
>>>>
>>>>  static inline struct page *page_pool_dev_alloc_pages(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>> @@ -137,6 +147,17 @@ static inline struct page *page_pool_dev_alloc_pages(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>         return page_pool_alloc_pages(pool, gfp);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +struct page *page_pool_alloc_frag(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>> +                                 unsigned int *offset, gfp_t gfp);
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline struct page *page_pool_dev_alloc_frag(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>> +                                                   unsigned int *offset)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       gfp_t gfp = (GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
>>>> +
>>>> +       return page_pool_alloc_frag(pool, offset, gfp);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  /* get the stored dma direction. A driver might decide to treat this locally and
>>>>   * avoid the extra cache line from page_pool to determine the direction
>>>>   */
>>>> @@ -253,11 +274,4 @@ static inline void page_pool_ring_unlock(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>                 spin_unlock_bh(&pool->ring.producer_lock);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> -/* Store mem_info on struct page and use it while recycling skb frags */
>>>> -static inline
>>>> -void page_pool_store_mem_info(struct page *page, struct page_pool *pp)
>>>> -{
>>>> -       page->pp = pp;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>>  #endif /* _NET_PAGE_POOL_H */
>>>
>>> So the issue as I see it with the page_pool recycling patch set is
>>> that I don't think we had proper guarantees in place that the page->pp
>>> value was flushed in all cases where skb->dev was changed. Basically
>>> the logic we need to have in place to address those issues is that
>>> skb->dev is changed we need to invalidate the DMA mappings on the
>>> page_pool page.
>>
>> The DMA mappings invalidating is based on the pool->p.dev, is there
>> any reason why the DMA mappings need invalidating when skb->dev is
>> change, as fast I can tell, the tx is not aware of page pool, so
>> when the skb is redirected, the page of the skb is always DMA mapped
>> according to skb->dev before xmitting.
>>
>> Or it is about XDP redirected?
>>
>> Is there something obvious I missed here?
> 
> It is about unmapping the page. In order to do so we have to maintain
> a pointer to the original DMA device. The page pool is doing that for
> us currently.
> 
> Most netdevs have a parent  device that is used for DMA mapping.
> Therefore if skb->dev is valid, then the parent device is still valid
> since destroying the parent would destroy the children. If the
> skb->dev is dropped or changed, then we cannot guarantee the parent
> device is still present. So generally if skb->dev cannot be maintained
> then we probably shouldn't be maintaining the DMA mapping or page->pp
> across that boundary either.

Does the get_device(pool->p.dev) in page_pool_init() not prevent the
above case?

> 
>>>
>>> I honestly wonder if it wouldn't be better for the recycling to just
>>> make use of the page->lru pointers to keep a list of pages that are
>>> outstanding so that it could release them if it is under DMA pressure.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
>>>> index 5e4eb45..95d94a7 100644
>>>> --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
>>>> +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
>>>> @@ -206,6 +206,49 @@ static bool page_pool_dma_map(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
>>>>         return true;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +static int page_pool_set_pp_info(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>> +                                struct page *page, gfp_t gfp)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct page_pool_info *pp_info;
>>>> +
>>>> +       pp_info = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*pp_info), gfp, pool->p.nid);
>>>> +       if (!pp_info)
>>>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_PAGECNT_BIAS) {
>>>> +               page_ref_add(page, USHRT_MAX);
>>>> +               pp_info->pagecnt_bias = USHRT_MAX;
>>>> +       } else {
>>>> +               pp_info->pagecnt_bias = 0;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       page->pp_magic |= PP_SIGNATURE;
>>>> +       pp_info->pp = pool;
>>>> +       page->pp_info = pp_info;
>>>> +       return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Having to perform a kzalloc in this path pretty much ruins the whole
>>> point of the page_pool API in my opinion. We would be much better off
>>> having a static structure that is to be maintained somewhere rather
>>> than doing this dynamically as you would just make a memory hog able
>>> to hold that much more memory.
>>
>> Let's see if repurposing the lower 12 bits of the dma address make sense?
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>>>
>>>> +static int page_pool_clear_pp_info(struct page *page)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct page_pool_info *pp_info = page->pp_info;
>>>> +       int bias;
>>>> +
>>>> +       bias = pp_info->pagecnt_bias;
>>>> +
>>>> +       kfree(pp_info);
>>>> +       page->pp_info = NULL;
>>>> +       page->pp_magic = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +       return bias;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void page_pool_clear_and_drain_page(struct page *page)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       int bias = page_pool_clear_pp_info(page);
>>>> +
>>>> +       __page_frag_cache_drain(page, bias + 1);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  static struct page *__page_pool_alloc_page_order(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>>                                                  gfp_t gfp)
>>>>  {
>>>> @@ -216,13 +259,16 @@ static struct page *__page_pool_alloc_page_order(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>>         if (unlikely(!page))
>>>>                 return NULL;
>>>>
>>>> -       if ((pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP) &&
>>>> -           unlikely(!page_pool_dma_map(pool, page))) {
>>>> +       if (unlikely(page_pool_set_pp_info(pool, page, gfp))) {
>>>>                 put_page(page);
>>>>                 return NULL;
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> -       page->pp_magic |= PP_SIGNATURE;
>>>> +       if ((pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP) &&
>>>> +           unlikely(!page_pool_dma_map(pool, page))) {
>>>> +               page_pool_clear_and_drain_page(page);
>>>> +               return NULL;
>>>> +       }
>>>>
>>>>         /* Track how many pages are held 'in-flight' */
>>>>         pool->pages_state_hold_cnt++;
>>>> @@ -261,12 +307,17 @@ static struct page *__page_pool_alloc_pages_slow(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>>          */
>>>>         for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
>>>>                 page = pool->alloc.cache[i];
>>>> +               if (unlikely(page_pool_set_pp_info(pool, page, gfp))) {
>>>> +                       put_page(page);
>>>> +                       continue;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>>>                 if ((pp_flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP) &&
>>>>                     unlikely(!page_pool_dma_map(pool, page))) {
>>>> -                       put_page(page);
>>>> +                       page_pool_clear_and_drain_page(page);
>>>>                         continue;
>>>>                 }
>>>
>>> This seems backwards to me. I would have the pp_info populated after
>>> you have generated the DMA mapping.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>>> -               page->pp_magic |= PP_SIGNATURE;
>>>> +
>>>>                 pool->alloc.cache[pool->alloc.count++] = page;
>>>>                 /* Track how many pages are held 'in-flight' */
>>>>                 pool->pages_state_hold_cnt++;
>>>> @@ -284,6 +335,25 @@ static struct page *__page_pool_alloc_pages_slow(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>>         return page;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +static void page_pool_sub_bias(struct page *page, int nr)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct page_pool_info *pp_info = page->pp_info;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* "pp_info->pagecnt_bias == 0" indicates the PAGECNT_BIAS
>>>> +        * flags is not set.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if (!pp_info->pagecnt_bias)
>>>> +               return;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* Make sure pagecnt_bias > 0 for elevated refcnt case */
>>>> +       if (unlikely(pp_info->pagecnt_bias <= nr)) {
>>>> +               page_ref_add(page, USHRT_MAX);
>>>> +               pp_info->pagecnt_bias += USHRT_MAX;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       pp_info->pagecnt_bias -= nr;
>>>
>>> So we should never have a case where pagecnt_bias is less than the
>>> value we are subtracting. If we have that then it is a bug.
>>
>> Yes.
> 
> Sorry, I was referring to the code above comparing pagecnt_bias to nr.
> At most nr should only ever be equal to pagecnt_bias, you should hold
> off on recharging pagecnt_bias until you can verify the page_count
> indicates we are the only holder of the page. Then we can recharge it
> and reset any offsets.

Actually the page pool is the only user of the page when the driver is
calling page_pool_alloc_frag(), page is from pool->alloc/pool->ring or
page allocator in page_pool_alloc_pages(), as memtioned above, the
last user will put the page in pool->ring holding a lock, and when
page_pool_alloc_pages() get a page (also holding the same lock) from
pool->ring, there should be no user of the page other than the page pool.

And page_pool_sub_bias() is called in page_pool_alloc_frag() and
page_pool_alloc_pages().

> 
>>>
>>> The general idea with the pagecnt_bias is that we want to batch the
>>> release of the page from the device. So the assumption is we are going
>>> to pull multiple references from the page and rather than doing
>>> page_ref_inc repeatedly we want to batch it at the start, and we have
>>> to perform a __page_frag_cache_drain to remove any unused references
>>> when we need to free it.
>>
>> Yes, it is about batching the page_ref_inc() operation.
>>
>>>
>>> What we should probably be checking for is "pp_info->pagecnt_bias -
>>> page_count(page) > 1" when we hit the end of the page. If that is true
>>> then we cannot recycle the page and so when we hit PAGE_SIZE for the
>>> offset we have to drop the mapping and free the page subtracting any
>>> remaining pagecnt_bias we are holding. If I recall I actually ran this
>>> the other way and ran toward 0 in my implementation before as that
>>> allows for not having to track via a value and instead simply checking
>>> for a signed result.
>>
>>
>> When allocating a page for frag, we have decided how many user is using
>> the page, that is the "page_pool_sub_bias(frag_page, max_len / frag_size - 1)"
>> in page_pool_alloc_frag().
>>
>> so it is up to the driver or stack to do multi page_pool_put_full_page()
>> calling for the same page.
> 
> So that is one spot that I think is an issue. We normally only want
> this called once per page and ideally after pagecnt_bias is 0. One
> issue is that pagecnt_bias is non-atomic so we should really be
> restricting this to just the driver calling it in softirq context.

Let's discuss the pagecnt_bias handling at the end.

> 
>> Or the page pool will call page_pool_put_full_page() in page_pool_empty_frag()
>> if some of the page frag is not allocated to the driver yet.
>>
>> It seems you are suggesting a slightly different way to do frag reusing.
> 
> As I mentioned I am not a fan of the current recycling scheme. There
> are too many openings for it to end up unmapping the same page
> multiple times or other possible issues.

Other than the pagecnt_bias handling in non-atomic context, I think
most of the race you mentioned above has been handled if I understand
it correctly?

> 
> In my mind the driver or page_pool should own the page and just keep
> it on a list to either be freed or recycled with the skb destructor
> being used to trigger the recycling.

The page_pool still own the page, it is just that when driver also own
the page by calling page_pool_alloc_pages(), and the page is not on a
list of page pool, the driver or stack calling the page_pool_put_full_page()
will put the page back to the list of page pool(or do resource cleaning and
put it back to page allocator) if it is the last user.

I am not similar enough with destructor to say if using skb destructor
has any difference here.

> 
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  /* For using page_pool replace: alloc_pages() API calls, but provide
>>>>   * synchronization guarantee for allocation side.
>>>>   */
>>>> @@ -293,15 +363,66 @@ struct page *page_pool_alloc_pages(struct page_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp)
>>>>
>>>>         /* Fast-path: Get a page from cache */
>>>>         page = __page_pool_get_cached(pool);
>>>> -       if (page)
>>>> +       if (page) {
>>>> +               page_pool_sub_bias(page, 1);
>>>>                 return page;
>>>> +       }
>>>
>>> I'm not sure we should be subtracting from the bias here. Ideally if
>>> you are getting a page you are getting the full 4K page. So having a
>>> bias other than PAGE_SIZE - 1 wouldn't make much sense here.
>>
>> It seems we have different understanding about pagecnt_bias here,
>> as the pagecnt_bias is hidden in the page pool now, the subtracting
>> here mean we give one refcnt to the caller of page_pool_alloc_pages(),
>> And in page_pool_alloc_frag(), we give different part of page to the
>> driver, so it means more user too, so there is also subtracting in the
>> page_pool_alloc_frag() too.
> 
> I see what you are getting at, however I think it depends on your use
> case. In my mind since you are allocating the full page you should
> have the full count available to you. I don't believe pagecnt_bias is
> something that should be looked at outside of the driver, or at least
> outside of the napi context of the device softirq.
> 
> So really in order for this to work correctly you would need to have
> some minimum amount of bias reserved for the device to access if you
> are going to break up page in to n usable buffers.

Ensuring the pagecnt_bias > 0 in page_pool_sub_bias() seems enough
to make sure the page pool always own the page?

> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>>         /* Slow-path: cache empty, do real allocation */
>>>>         page = __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow(pool, gfp);
>>>> +       if (page)
>>>> +               page_pool_sub_bias(page, 1);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Same here. Really in both cases we should be getting initialized
>>> pages, not ones that are already decrementing.
>>>
>>>>         return page;
>>>>  }
>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_alloc_pages);
>>>>
>>>> +struct page *page_pool_alloc_frag(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>> +                                 unsigned int *offset, gfp_t gfp)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       unsigned int frag_offset = pool->frag_offset;
>>>> +       unsigned int frag_size = pool->p.frag_size;
>>>> +       struct page *frag_page = pool->frag_page;
>>>> +       unsigned int max_len = pool->p.max_len;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!frag_page || frag_offset + frag_size > max_len) {
>>>
>>> These are two very different cases. If frag_page is set and just out
>>> of space we need to be freeing the unused references.
>>
>> As mention above, we are depending on the last user to do the
>> recycling or freeing the unused references.
> 
> But you are holding the pagecnt_bias for it aren't you? If so you need
> to release it so that the last user knows that they were the last
> user.

The user will know it is the last user if page_pool_bias_page_recyclable()
return true.

> 
> Once you aren't using the page you need to release the pagecnt_bias
> since the page is on the path to being freed.
It seems the above is more above what does the pagecnt_bias represent?

> 
>>>
>>>> +               frag_page = page_pool_alloc_pages(pool, gfp);
>>>
>>> So as per my comment above the page should be coming in with a
>>> pagecnt_bias of PAGE_SIZE - 1, and an actual page_ref_count of
>>> PAGE_SIZE.
>>
>> Let's align the understanding of pagecnt_bias first?
>>
>> pagecnt_bias meant how many refcnt of a page belong to the page
>> pool, and (page_ref_count() - pagecnt_bias) means how many refcnt

Actually it is (page_ref_count() - (pagecnt_bias + 1))

>> of a page belong to user of the page pool.
> 
> So my view is a slight variation on that. I view pagecnt_bias as the
> count of references reserved by the page_pool, and page_ref_count -
> pagecnt_bias is the actual reference count. So if I am going to free a
> page I should deduct pagecnt_bias + 1 from the reference count to
> account for dropping our bias and the one for the fact that we own the
> page.

So if (page_ref_count() - (pagecnt_bias + 1)) == 0 means only the page
pool hold the page and it means whichever caller having the
page_pool_bias_page_recyclable() returning true is the last user, right?

> 
>>>
>>>> +               if (unlikely(!frag_page)) {
>>>> +                       pool->frag_page = NULL;
>>>> +                       return NULL;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>>> +               pool->frag_page = frag_page;
>>>> +               frag_offset = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +               page_pool_sub_bias(frag_page, max_len / frag_size - 1);
>>>
>>> Why are you doing division here? We should just be subtracting 1 from
>>> the pagecnt_bias since that is the number of buffers that are being
>>> used. The general idea is that when pagecnt_bias is 0 we cut the page
>>> loose for potential recycling or freeing, otherwise we just subtract
>>> our new value from pagecnt_bias until we reach it.
>>
>> As mentioned above, division is used to find out how many user may be
>> using the page.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense to me because it won't tell you the actual
> users, and from what I can tell it is buggy since if I use this to
> allocate a chunk larger than 2K this comes out to 0 doesn't it? It
> seems like you should just always use 1 as the count.

There is already a page_pool_sub_bias(page, 1) in page_pool_alloc_pages(),
so for 4K page, there is two users for a page with 2K frag size, and there
is 32 users for 64K page with 2K frag size.

The reason doing a page_pool_sub_bias(page, 1) in page_pool_alloc_pages()
is that the caller is expected to use the page as a whole when using the
page_pool_alloc_pages() directly, so it means only one user.

> 
>>>
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       *offset = frag_offset;
>>>> +       pool->frag_offset = frag_offset + frag_size;
>>>> +
>>>> +       return frag_page;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_alloc_frag);
>>>> +
>>>> +static void page_pool_empty_frag(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       unsigned int frag_offset = pool->frag_offset;
>>>> +       unsigned int frag_size = pool->p.frag_size;
>>>> +       struct page *frag_page = pool->frag_page;
>>>> +       unsigned int max_len = pool->p.max_len;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!frag_page)
>>>> +               return;
>>>> +
>>>> +       while (frag_offset + frag_size <= max_len) {
>>>> +               page_pool_put_full_page(pool, frag_page, false);
>>>> +               frag_offset += frag_size;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       pool->frag_page = NULL;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> It would be good to look over the page_frag_alloc_align and
>>> __page_frag_cache_drain functions for examples of how to do most of
>>> this. The one complication is that we have the dma mappings and
>>> page_pool logic to deal with.
>>
>> Is it ok to rely on the user providing a aligning frag_size, so
>> that do not need handling it here?
> 
> It is probably fine since the page pool should only have one consumer
> so the requests just need to be aligned by them.
> 
>>>
>>>>  /* Calculate distance between two u32 values, valid if distance is below 2^(31)
>>>>   *  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_number_arithmetic#General_Solution
>>>>   */
>>>> @@ -326,10 +447,11 @@ static s32 page_pool_inflight(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>   * a regular page (that will eventually be returned to the normal
>>>>   * page-allocator via put_page).
>>>>   */
>>>> -void page_pool_release_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
>>>> +static int __page_pool_release_page(struct page_pool *pool,
>>>> +                                   struct page *page)
>>>>  {
>>>>         dma_addr_t dma;
>>>> -       int count;
>>>> +       int bias, count;
>>>>
>>>>         if (!(pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP))
>>>>                 /* Always account for inflight pages, even if we didn't
>>>> @@ -345,22 +467,29 @@ void page_pool_release_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
>>>>                              DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC);
>>>>         page_pool_set_dma_addr(page, 0);
>>>>  skip_dma_unmap:
>>>> -       page->pp_magic = 0;
>>>> +       bias = page_pool_clear_pp_info(page);
>>>>
>>>>         /* This may be the last page returned, releasing the pool, so
>>>>          * it is not safe to reference pool afterwards.
>>>>          */
>>>>         count = atomic_inc_return(&pool->pages_state_release_cnt);
>>>>         trace_page_pool_state_release(pool, page, count);
>>>> +       return bias;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +void page_pool_release_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       int bias = __page_pool_release_page(pool, page);
>>>> +
>>>> +       WARN_ONCE(bias, "PAGECNT_BIAS is not supposed to be enabled\n");
>>>>  }
>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_release_page);
>>>>
>>>>  /* Return a page to the page allocator, cleaning up our state */
>>>>  static void page_pool_return_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
>>>>  {
>>>> -       page_pool_release_page(pool, page);
>>>> +       __page_frag_cache_drain(page, __page_pool_release_page(pool, page) + 1);
>>>>
>>>> -       put_page(page);
>>>>         /* An optimization would be to call __free_pages(page, pool->p.order)
>>>>          * knowing page is not part of page-cache (thus avoiding a
>>>>          * __page_cache_release() call).
>>>> @@ -395,7 +524,16 @@ static bool page_pool_recycle_in_cache(struct page *page,
>>>>         return true;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> -/* If the page refcnt == 1, this will try to recycle the page.
>>>> +static bool page_pool_bias_page_recyclable(struct page *page, int bias)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       int ref = page_ref_dec_return(page);
>>>> +
>>>> +       WARN_ON(ref < bias);
>>>> +       return ref == bias + 1;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/* If pagecnt_bias == 0 and the page refcnt == 1, this will try to
>>>> + * recycle the page.
>>>>   * if PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV is set, we'll try to sync the DMA area for
>>>>   * the configured size min(dma_sync_size, pool->max_len).
>>>>   * If the page refcnt != 1, then the page will be returned to memory
>>>> @@ -405,16 +543,35 @@ static __always_inline struct page *
>>>>  __page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page,
>>>>                      unsigned int dma_sync_size, bool allow_direct)
>>>>  {
>>>> -       /* This allocator is optimized for the XDP mode that uses
>>>> +       int bias = page->pp_info->pagecnt_bias;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* Handle the elevated refcnt case first:
>>>> +        * multi-frames-per-page, it is likely from the skb, which
>>>> +        * is likely called in non-sofrirq context, so do not recycle
>>>> +        * it in pool->alloc.
>>>> +        *
>>>> +        * Then handle non-elevated refcnt case:
>>>>          * one-frame-per-page, but have fallbacks that act like the
>>>>          * regular page allocator APIs.
>>>> -        *
>>>>          * refcnt == 1 means page_pool owns page, and can recycle it.
>>>>          *
>>>>          * page is NOT reusable when allocated when system is under
>>>>          * some pressure. (page_is_pfmemalloc)
>>>>          */
>>>> -       if (likely(page_ref_count(page) == 1 && !page_is_pfmemalloc(page))) {
>>>> +       if (bias) {
>>>> +               /* We have gave some refcnt to the stack, so wait for
>>>> +                * all refcnt of the stack to be decremented before
>>>> +                * enabling recycling.
>>>> +                */
>>>> +               if (!page_pool_bias_page_recyclable(page, bias))
>>>> +                       return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> +               /* only enable recycling when it is not pfmemalloced */
>>>> +               if (!page_is_pfmemalloc(page))
>>>> +                       return page;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> So this would be fine if this was only accessed from the driver. The
>>> problem is the recycling code made it so that this is accessed in the
>>> generic skb freeing path. As such I think this is prone to races since
>>> you have to guarantee the ordering of things between the reference
>>> count and pagecnt_bias.
>>
>> As reference count is handled atomically is page_pool_bias_page_recyclable,
>> and pagecnt_bias is changed before any page is handled to the stack(maybe
>> some READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE or barrier is still needed, will check it again),
>> so I suppose the ordering is correct?
> 
> The problem is in order to get this working correctly you would likely
> need to add a number of barriers so that reads and writes are in a
> specific order. You would be much better off just not
> reading/modifying the pagecnt_bias outside of the softirq paths.

Most of the reusing implemented in the driver today may not be
able to do reusing when the stack does not process the skb and
dec the refcnt quick enough, this patch try to reuse the page
as much as possible when above case happens.

So it seems the pagecnt_bias need to be checked outside of the
softirq to implement that?

Let's break down the step of reusing a page:
1. driver call page_pool_alloc_frag() to allocte a page frag.
2. page pool sub the pagecnt_bias according to the user using the
   page.
3. driver fill the page info to the desc.
4. driver notify the hw that desc is filled with page info.
5. hw write the packet to page memory according to info in desc.
6. driver process the desc and passed the skb(contianing the page
   frag) to stack
7. stack process the skb
8. stack put the page to page pool calling page_pool_return_page(),
   if it is the last user by checking pagecnt_bias, the page is recycled
   in page pool or is returned to page allocated after cleaning the
   resource.

There is usually barrier in step 4 and step 6, at least in hns3 drvier,
see the barrier does not seems to be necessary?

see:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_enet.c#L2867
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hns3_enet.c#L3368


> 
>>>
>>>> +       } else if (likely(page_ref_count(page) == 1 &&
>>>> +                         !page_is_pfmemalloc(page))) {
>>>>                 /* Read barrier done in page_ref_count / READ_ONCE */
>>>>
>>>>                 if (pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV)
>>>> @@ -428,22 +585,8 @@ __page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page,
>>>>                 /* Page found as candidate for recycling */
>>>>                 return page;
>>>>         }
>>>> -       /* Fallback/non-XDP mode: API user have elevated refcnt.
>>>> -        *
>>>> -        * Many drivers split up the page into fragments, and some
>>>> -        * want to keep doing this to save memory and do refcnt based
>>>> -        * recycling. Support this use case too, to ease drivers
>>>> -        * switching between XDP/non-XDP.
>>>> -        *
>>>> -        * In-case page_pool maintains the DMA mapping, API user must
>>>> -        * call page_pool_put_page once.  In this elevated refcnt
>>>> -        * case, the DMA is unmapped/released, as driver is likely
>>>> -        * doing refcnt based recycle tricks, meaning another process
>>>> -        * will be invoking put_page.
>>>> -        */
>>>> -       /* Do not replace this with page_pool_return_page() */
>>>> +
>>>>         page_pool_release_page(pool, page);
>>>> -       put_page(page);
>>>>
>>>>         return NULL;
>>>>  }
>>>> @@ -452,6 +595,7 @@ void page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page,
>>>>                         unsigned int dma_sync_size, bool allow_direct)
>>>>  {
>>>>         page = __page_pool_put_page(pool, page, dma_sync_size, allow_direct);
>>>> +
>>>>         if (page && !page_pool_recycle_in_ring(pool, page)) {
>>>>                 /* Cache full, fallback to free pages */
>>>>                 page_pool_return_page(pool, page);
>>>> @@ -503,8 +647,11 @@ static void page_pool_empty_ring(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>
>>>>         /* Empty recycle ring */
>>>>         while ((page = ptr_ring_consume_bh(&pool->ring))) {
>>>> -               /* Verify the refcnt invariant of cached pages */
>>>> -               if (!(page_ref_count(page) == 1))
>>>> +               /* Verify the refcnt invariant of cached pages for
>>>> +                * non elevated refcnt case.
>>>> +                */
>>>> +               if (!(pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_PAGECNT_BIAS) &&
>>>> +                   !(page_ref_count(page) == 1))
>>>>                         pr_crit("%s() page_pool refcnt %d violation\n",
>>>>                                 __func__, page_ref_count(page));
>>>>
>>>> @@ -544,6 +691,7 @@ static void page_pool_empty_alloc_cache_once(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>
>>>>  static void page_pool_scrub(struct page_pool *pool)
>>>>  {
>>>> +       page_pool_empty_frag(pool);
>>>>         page_pool_empty_alloc_cache_once(pool);
>>>>         pool->destroy_cnt++;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -637,14 +785,13 @@ bool page_pool_return_skb_page(struct page *page)
>>>>         if (unlikely(page->pp_magic != PP_SIGNATURE))
>>>>                 return false;
>>>>
>>>> -       pp = page->pp;
>>>> +       pp = page->pp_info->pp;
>>>>
>>>>         /* Driver set this to memory recycling info. Reset it on recycle.
>>>>          * This will *not* work for NIC using a split-page memory model.
>>>>          * The page will be returned to the pool here regardless of the
>>>>          * 'flipped' fragment being in use or not.
>>>>          */
>>>> -       page->pp = NULL;
>>>>         page_pool_put_full_page(pp, page, false);
>>>>
>>>>         return true;
>>>> --
>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-07-08  2:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-30  9:17 [PATCH net-next RFC 0/2] add elevated refcnt support for page pool Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-30  9:17 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 1/2] page_pool: add page recycling support based on elevated refcnt Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-02  9:42   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-07-02 10:15     ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-06  4:54       ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-06  6:46         ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-06  8:18           ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-06 20:45   ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-07  3:05     ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-07 15:01       ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-07 19:03         ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-07 21:49           ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-08 14:21             ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-08 14:24               ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-08 14:50                 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-08 15:17                   ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-08 15:29                     ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-08 15:36                       ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-08 15:41                         ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-08 15:47                           ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-08  2:27         ` Yunsheng Lin [this message]
2021-07-08 15:36           ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-09  6:26             ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-09 14:15               ` Alexander Duyck
2021-07-10  9:16                 ` [Linuxarm] " Yunsheng Lin
2021-06-30  9:17 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 2/2] net: hns3: support skb's frag page recycling based on page pool Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-02  8:36 ` [PATCH net-next RFC 0/2] add elevated refcnt support for " Ilias Apalodimas
2021-07-02 13:39 ` Matteo Croce
2021-07-06 15:51   ` Russell King (Oracle)
2021-07-06 23:19     ` Matteo Croce
2021-07-07 16:50       ` Marcin Wojtas
2021-07-09  4:15         ` Matteo Croce
2021-07-09  6:40           ` Yunsheng Lin
2021-07-09  6:42             ` Ilias Apalodimas

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=36a46c57-0090-8f3b-a358-ebbb2512e4cd@huawei.com \
    --to=linyunsheng@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=alobakin@pm.me \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cong.wang@bytedance.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
    --cc=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=haokexin@gmail.com \
    --cc=hawk@kernel.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=linuxarm@openeuler.org \
    --cc=mcroce@microsoft.com \
    --cc=mw@semihalf.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nogikh@google.com \
    --cc=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=salil.mehta@huawei.com \
    --cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=wenxu@ucloud.cn \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=willemb@google.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yisen.zhuang@huawei.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/2] page_pool: add page recycling support based on elevated refcnt' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).