Re: [net-next v1 08/16] memory-provider: dmabuf devmem memory provider

[Mina Almasry]

On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 7:05 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/23 23:25, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:56 PM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/8/23 00:52, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > ...
> >>> +     if (pool->p.queue)
> >>> +             binding = READ_ONCE(pool->p.queue->binding);
> >>> +
> >>> +     if (binding) {
> >>> +             pool->mp_ops = &dmabuf_devmem_ops;
> >>> +             pool->mp_priv = binding;
> >>> +     }
> >>
> >> Hmm, I don't understand why would we replace a nice transparent
> >> api with page pool relying on a queue having devmem specific
> >> pointer? It seemed more flexible and cleaner in the last RFC.
> >>
> >
> > Jakub requested this change and may chime in, but I suspect it's to
> > further abstract the devmem changes from driver. In this iteration,
> > the driver grabs the netdev_rx_queue and passes it to the page_pool,
> > and any future configurations between the net stack and page_pool can
> > be passed this way with the driver unbothered.
>
> Ok, that makes sense, but even if passed via an rx queue I'd
> at least hope it keeping abstract provider parameters, e.g.
> ops, but not hard coded with devmem specific code.
>
> It might even be better done with a helper like
> create_page_pool_from_queue(), unless there is some deeper
> interaction b/w pp and rx queues is predicted.
>

Off hand I don't see the need for a new create_page_pool_from_queue().
page_pool_create() already takes in a param arg that lets us pass in
the queue as well as any other params.

> >>> +
> >>>        if (pool->mp_ops) {
> >>>                err = pool->mp_ops->init(pool);
> >>>                if (err) {
> >>> @@ -1020,3 +1033,77 @@ void page_pool_update_nid(struct page_pool *pool, int new_nid)
> >>>        }
> >>>    }
> >>>    EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_pool_update_nid);
> >>> +
> >>> +void __page_pool_iov_free(struct page_pool_iov *ppiov)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     if (WARN_ON(ppiov->pp->mp_ops != &dmabuf_devmem_ops))
> >>> +             return;
> >>> +
> >>> +     netdev_free_dmabuf(ppiov);
> >>> +}
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__page_pool_iov_free);
> >>
> >> I didn't look too deep but I don't think I immediately follow
> >> the pp refcounting. It increments pages_state_hold_cnt on
> >> allocation, but IIUC doesn't mark skbs for recycle? Then, they all
> >> will be put down via page_pool_iov_put_many() bypassing
> >> page_pool_return_page() and friends. That will call
> >> netdev_free_dmabuf(), which doesn't bump pages_state_release_cnt.
> >>
> >> At least I couldn't make it work with io_uring, and for my purposes,
> >> I forced all puts to go through page_pool_return_page(), which calls
> >> the ->release_page callback. The callback will put the reference and
> >> ask its page pool to account release_cnt. It also gets rid of
> >> __page_pool_iov_free(), as we'd need to add a hook there for
> >> customization otherwise.
> >>
> >> I didn't care about overhead because the hot path for me is getting
> >> buffers from a ring, which is somewhat analogous to sock_devmem_dontneed(),
> >> but done on pp allocations under napi, and it's done separately.
> >>
> >> Completely untested with TCP devmem:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/isilence/linux/commit/14bd56605183dc80b540999e8058c79ac92ae2d8
> >>
> >
> > This was a mistake in the last RFC, which should be fixed in v1. In
> > the RFC I was not marking the skbs as skb_mark_for_recycle(), so the
> > unreffing path wasn't as expected.
> >
> > In this iteration, that should be completely fixed. I suspect since I
> > just posted this you're actually referring to the issue tested on the
> > last RFC? Correct me if wrong.
>
> Right, it was with RFCv3
>
> > In this iteration, the reffing story:
> >
> > - memory provider allocs ppiov and returns it to the page pool with
> > ppiov->refcount == 1.
> > - The page_pool gives the page to the driver. The driver may
> > obtain/release references with page_pool_page_[get|put]_many(), but
> > the driver is likely not doing that unless it's doing its own page
> > recycling.
> > - The net stack obtains references via skb_frag_ref() ->
> > page_pool_page_get_many()
> > - The net stack drops references via skb_frag_unref() ->
> > napi_pp_put_page() -> page_pool_return_page() and friends.
> >
> > Thus, the issue where the unref path was skipping
> > page_pool_return_page() and friends should be resolved in this
> > iteration, let me know if you think otherwise, but I think this was an
> > issue limited to the last RFC.
>
> Then page_pool_iov_put_many() should and supposedly would never be
> called by non devmap code because all puts must circle back into
> ->release_page. Why adding it to into page_pool_page_put_many()?
>
> @@ -731,6 +731,29 @@ __page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page,
> +       if (page_is_page_pool_iov(page)) {
> ...
> +               page_pool_page_put_many(page, 1);
> +               return NULL;
> +       }
>
> Well, I'm looking at this new branch from Patch 10, it can put
> the buffer, but what if we race at it's actually the final put?
> Looks like nobody is going to to bump up pages_state_release_cnt
>

Good catch, I think indeed the release_cnt would be incorrect in this
case. I think the race is benign in the sense that the ppiov will be
freed correctly and available for allocation when the page_pool next
needs it; the issue is with the stats AFAICT.

> If you remove the branch, let it fall into ->release and rely
> on refcounting there, then the callback could also fix up
> release_cnt or ask pp to do it, like in the patch I linked above
>

Sadly I don't think this is possible due to the reasons I mention in
the commit message of that patch. Prematurely releasing ppiov and not
having them be candidates for recycling shows me a 4-5x degradation in
performance.

What I could do here is detect that the refcount was dropped to 0 and
fix up the stats in that case.

-- 
Thanks,
Mina