Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v4 6/9] iavf: switch to Page Pool

[Alexander Lobakin]

From: Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:16:39 +0800

> On 2023/7/7 0:38, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> 
> ...
>  
>>>
>>>>  /**
>>>> @@ -766,13 +742,19 @@ void iavf_free_rx_resources(struct iavf_ring *rx_ring)
>>>>   **/
>>>>  int iavf_setup_rx_descriptors(struct iavf_ring *rx_ring)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	struct device *dev = rx_ring->dev;
>>>> -	int bi_size;
>>>> +	struct page_pool *pool;
>>>> +
>>>> +	pool = libie_rx_page_pool_create(&rx_ring->q_vector->napi,
>>>> +					 rx_ring->count);
>>>
>>> If a page is able to be spilt between more than one desc, perhaps the
>>> prt_ring size does not need to be as big as rx_ring->count.
>>
>> But we doesn't know in advance, right? Esp. given that it's hidden in
>> the lib. But anyway, you can only assume that in regular cases if you
>> always allocate frags of the same size, PP will split pages when 2+
>> frags can fit there or return the whole page otherwise, but who knows
>> what might happen.
> 
> It seems intel driver is able to know the size of memory it needs when
> creating the ring/queue/napi/pp, maybe the driver only tell the libie
> how many descs does it use for queue, and libie can adjust it accordingly?

But libie can't say for sure how PP will split pages for it, right?

> 
>> BTW, with recent recycling optimization, most of recycling is done
>> directly through cache, not ptr_ring. So I'd even say it's safe to start
>> creating smaller ptr_rings in the drivers.
> 
> The problem is that we may use more memory than before for certain case
> if we don't limit the size of ptr_ring, unless we can ensure all of
> recycling is done directly through cache, not ptr_ring.
Also not sure I'm following =\

[...]

Thanks,
Olek