Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v12 1/5] page_pool: unify frag_count handling in page_pool_is_last_frag() | From | Yunsheng Lin <> | Date | Mon, 23 Oct 2023 20:26:34 +0800 |
| |
On 2023/10/23 19:43, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Yunsheng, > > [...] > >> + * 1. 'n == 1': no need to actually overwrite it. >> + * 2. 'n != 1': overwrite it with one, which is the rare case >> + * for pp_frag_count draining. >> * >> - * The main advantage to doing this is that an atomic_read is >> - * generally a much cheaper operation than an atomic update, >> - * especially when dealing with a page that may be partitioned >> - * into only 2 or 3 pieces. >> + * The main advantage to doing this is that not only we avoid a atomic >> + * update, as an atomic_read is generally a much cheaper operation than >> + * an atomic update, especially when dealing with a page that may be >> + * partitioned into only 2 or 3 pieces; but also unify the pp_frag_count >> + * handling by ensuring all pages have partitioned into only 1 piece >> + * initially, and only overwrite it when the page is partitioned into >> + * more than one piece. >> */ >> - if (atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr) >> + if (atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr) { >> + /* As we have ensured nr is always one for constant case using >> + * the BUILD_BUG_ON(), only need to handle the non-constant case >> + * here for pp_frag_count draining, which is a rare case. >> + */ >> + BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(nr) && nr != 1); >> + if (!__builtin_constant_p(nr)) >> + atomic_long_set(&page->pp_frag_count, 1); > > Aren't we changing the behaviour of the current code here? IIRC is > atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr we never updated the atomic > pp_frag_count and the reasoning was that the next caller can set it > properly.
If the next caller is calling the page_pool_alloc_frag(), then yes, because page_pool_fragment_page() will be used to reset the page->pp_frag_count, so it does not really matter what is the value of page->pp_frag_count when we are recycling a page.
If the next caller is calling page_pool_alloc_pages() directly without fragmenting a page, the above code is used to ensure that pp_frag_count is always one when page_pool_alloc_pages() fetches a page from pool->alloc or pool->ring, because page_pool_fragment_page() is not used to reset the page->pp_frag_count for page_pool_alloc_pages() and we have removed the per page_pool PP_FLAG_PAGE_FRAG in page_pool_is_last_frag().
As we don't know if the caller is page_pool_alloc_frag() or page_pool_alloc_pages(), so the above code ensure the page in pool->alloc or pool->ring always have the pp_frag_count being one.
> >> + >> return 0; >> + } >> >> ret = atomic_long_sub_return(nr, &page->pp_frag_count); >> WARN_ON(ret < 0); >> + >> + /* We are the last user here too, reset pp_frag_count back to 1 to >> + * ensure all pages have been partitioned into 1 piece initially, >> + * this should be the rare case when the last two fragment users call >> + * page_pool_defrag_page() currently. >> + */ >> + if (unlikely(!ret)) >> + atomic_long_set(&page->pp_frag_count, 1); >> + >> return ret; >> } >> > > [....] > > Thanks > /Ilias > > . >
| |