Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/4] net: page_pool: a couple assorted optimizations

[Alexander Lobakin]

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 11:57:34 -0700

> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 15:50:55 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> The reason I did not do that is that I wasn't sure if there is no
>>> weird (netcons?) case where skb gets freed from an IRQ :(  
>>
>> Shouldn't they use dev_kfree_skb_any() or _irq()? Usage of plain
>> kfree_skb() is not allowed in the TH :s
> 
> I haven't looked at the code so I could be lying but I thought that 
> the only thing that can't run in hard IRQ context is the destructor,
> so if the caller knows there's no destructor they can free the skb.
> 
> I'd ask you the inverse question. If the main use case is skb xdp
> (which eh, uh, okay..) then why not make it use napi_consume_skb()?

Remember about Wi-Fi, DSA, and other poor citizens with no native XDP! :D
That was mostly a joke, but I thought of this, too. At the end my
thought was "let's try making it cover more usecases" and I found this
approach. I'm not saying it's optimal or even much needed, that's why I
sent it to discuss basically.

(e.g. I wanted to try speed up xdp_return_frame{,_bulk}() using it)

> I don't think skb XDP can run in hard IRQ context, can it?

skb XDP can't happen in the TH and I think we could assume it's safe to
use napi_consume_skb() there (with a fake non-zero budget :p).

> 
>> Anyway, if the flag really makes no sense, I can replace it with
>> in_softirq(), it's my hobby to break weird drivers :D

Thanks,
Olek