Re: [PATCH net-next v2] page_pool: split types and declarations from page_pool.h

[Alexander Duyck]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 8:30 AM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 4:23 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023/7/26 18:43, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > > From: Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 08:47:46 -0700
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 21:12 +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >>> Split types and pure function declarations from page_pool.h
> > >>> and add them in page_pool/types.h, so that C sources can
> > >>> include page_pool.h and headers should generally only include
> > >>> page_pool/types.h as suggested by jakub.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> Suggested-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> CC: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >>> +/* Caller must provide appropriate safe context, e.g. NAPI. */
> > >>> +void page_pool_update_nid(struct page_pool *pool, int new_nid);
> > >>> +
> > >>> +#endif /* _NET_PAGE_POOL_H */
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This seems kind of overkill for what is needed. It seems like the
> > >> general thought process with splitting this was so that you had just
> > >> the minimum of what is needed to support skbuff.h and the functions
> > >> declared there. The rest of this would then be added via the .h to the
> > >> .c files that will actually be calling the functions.
> > >>
> > >> By that logic I think the only thing we really need is the function
> > >> declaration for page_pool_return_skb_page moved into skbuff.h. We could
> > >> then just remove page_pool.h from skbuff.h couldn't we?
> > >
> > > This patch is not to drop page_pool.h include from skbuff.h.
> > > This is more future-proof (since I'm dropping this include anyway in my
> > > series) to have includes organized and prevent cases like that one with
> > > skbuff.h from happening. And to save some CPU cycles on preprocessing if
> > > that makes sense.
> >
> > The suggestion is from below:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230710113841.482cbeac@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I get that. But it seemed like your types.h is full of inline
> functions. That is what I was responding to. I would leave the inline
> functions in page_pool.h unless there is some significant need for
> them.
>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Another thing we could consider doing is looking at splitting things up
> > >> so that we had a include file in net/core/page_pool.h to handle some of
> > >> the cases where we are just linking the page_pool bits to other core
> > >> file bits such as xdp.c and skbuff.c.
> >
> > I suppose the above suggestion is about splitting or naming by
> > the user as the discussed in the below thread?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230721182942.0ca57663@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Actually my suggestion is more about defining boundaries for what is
> meant to be used by drivers and what isn't. The stuff you could keep
> in net/core/page_pool.h would only be usable by the files in net/core/
> whereas the stuff you are keeping in the include/net/ folder is usable
> by drivers. It is meant to prevent things like what you were
> complaining about with the Mellanox drivers making use of interfaces
> you didn't intend them to use.
>
> So for example you could pull out functions like
> page_pool_return_skb_page, page_pool_use_xdp_mem,
> page_pool_update_nid, and the like and look at relocating them into
> the net/core/ folder and thereby prevent abuse of those functions by
> drivers.

Okay, maybe not page_pool_update_nid. It looks like that is already in
use in the form of page_pool_nid_changed by drivers..