Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Sep 2022 19:48:28 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] shrink struct ubuf_info | From | Pavel Begunkov <> |
| |
On 9/27/22 18:56, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Tue, 2022-09-27 at 18:16 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 9/27/22 15:28, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> Hello Paolo, >>> >>> On 9/27/22 14:49, Paolo Abeni wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 17:39 +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>>> struct ubuf_info is large but not all fields are needed for all >>>>> cases. We have limited space in io_uring for it and large ubuf_info >>>>> prevents some struct embedding, even though we use only a subset >>>>> of the fields. It's also not very clean trying to use this typeless >>>>> extra space. >>>>> >>>>> Shrink struct ubuf_info to only necessary fields used in generic paths, >>>>> namely ->callback, ->refcnt and ->flags, which take only 16 bytes. And >>>>> make MSG_ZEROCOPY and some other users to embed it into a larger struct >>>>> ubuf_info_msgzc mimicking the former ubuf_info. >>>>> >>>>> Note, xen/vhost may also have some cleaning on top by creating >>>>> new structs containing ubuf_info but with proper types. >>>> >>>> That sounds a bit scaring to me. If I read correctly, every uarg user >>>> should check 'uarg->callback == msg_zerocopy_callback' before accessing >>>> any 'extend' fields. >>> >>> Providers of ubuf_info access those fields via callbacks and so already >>> know the actual structure used. The net core, on the opposite, should >>> keep it encapsulated and not touch them at all. >>> >>> The series lists all places where we use extended fields just on the >>> merit of stripping the structure of those fields and successfully >>> building it. The only user in net/ipv{4,6}/* is MSG_ZEROCOPY, which >>> again uses callbacks. >>> >>> Sounds like the right direction for me. There is a couple of >>> places where it might get type safer, i.e. adding types instead >>> of void* in for struct tun_msg_ctl and getting rid of one macro >>> hiding types in xen. But seems more like TODO for later. >>> >>>> AFAICS the current code sometimes don't do the >>>> explicit test because the condition is somewhat implied, which in turn >>>> is quite hard to track. >>>> >>>> clearing uarg->zerocopy for the 'wrong' uarg was armless and undetected >>>> before this series, and after will trigger an oops.. >>> >>> And now we don't have this field at all to access, considering that >>> nobody blindly casts it. >>> >>>> There is some noise due to uarg -> uarg_zc renaming which make the >>>> series harder to review. Have you considered instead keeping the old >>>> name and introducing a smaller 'struct ubuf_info_common'? the overall >>>> code should be mostly the same, but it will avoid the above mentioned >>>> noise. >>> >>> I don't think there will be less noise this way, but let me try >>> and see if I can get rid of some churn. >> >> It doesn't look any better for me >> >> TL;DR; This series converts only 3 users: tap, xen and MSG_ZEROCOPY >> and doesn't touch core code. If we do ubuf_info_common though I'd need >> to convert lots of places in skbuff.c and multiple places across >> tcp/udp, which is much worse. > > Uhmm... I underlook the fact we must preserve the current accessors for > the common fields. > > I guess something like the following could do (completely untested, > hopefully should illustrate the idea): > > struct ubuf_info { > struct_group_tagged(ubuf_info_common, common, > void (*callback)(struct sk_buff *, struct ubuf_info *, > bool zerocopy_success); > refcount_t refcnt; > u8 flags; > ); > > union { > struct { > unsigned long desc; > void *ctx; > }; > struct { > u32 id; > u16 len; > u16 zerocopy:1; > u32 bytelen; > }; > }; > > struct mmpin { > struct user_struct *user; > unsigned int num_pg; > } mmp; > }; > > Then you should be able to: > - access ubuf_info->callback, > - access the same field via ubuf_info->common.callback > - declare variables as 'struct ubuf_info_commom' with appropriate > contents. > > WDYT?
Interesting, I didn't think about struct_group, this would let to split patches better and would limit non-core changes. But if the plan is to convert the core helpers to ubuf_info_common, than I think it's still messier than changing ubuf providers only.
I can do the exercise, but I don't really see what is the goal. Let me ask this, if we forget for a second how diffs look, do you care about which pair is going to be in the end? ubuf_info_common/ubuf_info vs ubuf_info/ubuf_info_msgzc? Are there you concerned about naming or is there more to it?
-- Pavel Begunkov
| |