> On 2023/4/24 17:17, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >> On 2023/4/23 22:20, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>> On 2023/4/23 2:54, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>>> struct veth_priv {
> >>>>> @@ -727,17 +729,20 @@ static int veth_convert_skb_to_xdp_buff(struct veth_rq *rq,
> >>>>> goto drop;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Allocate skb head */
> >>>>> - page = alloc_page(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> >>>>> + page = page_pool_dev_alloc_pages(rq->page_pool);
> >>>>> if (!page)
> >>>>> goto drop;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> nskb = build_skb(page_address(page), PAGE_SIZE);
> >>>>
> >>>> If page pool is used with PP_FLAG_PAGE_FRAG, maybe there is some additional
> >>>> improvement for the MTU 1500B case, it seem a 4K page is able to hold two skb.
> >>>> And we can reduce the memory usage too, which is a significant saving if page
> >>>> size is 64K.
> >>>
> >>> please correct if I am wrong but I think the 1500B MTU case does not fit in the
> >>> half-page buffer size since we need to take into account VETH_XDP_HEADROOM.
> >>> In particular:
> >>>
> >>> - VETH_BUF_SIZE = 2048
> >>> - VETH_XDP_HEADROOM = 256 + 2 = 258
> >>
> >> On some arch the NET_IP_ALIGN is zero.
> >>
> >> I suppose XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM are for xdp_frame and data_meta, it seems
> >> xdp_frame is only 40 bytes for 64 bit arch and max size of metalen is 32
> >> as xdp_metalen_invalid() suggest, is there any other reason why we need
> >> 256 bytes here?
> >
> > XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM must be greater than (40 + 32)B because you may want push
> > new data at the beginning of the xdp_buffer/xdp_frame running
> > bpf_xdp_adjust_head() helper.
> > I think 256B has been selected for XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM since it is 4 cachelines
> > (but I can be wrong).
> > There was a discussion in the past to reduce XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM to 192B but
> > this is not merged yet and it is not related to this series. We can address
> > your comments in a follow-up patch when XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM series is merged.
>
> It worth mentioning that the performance gain in this patch is at the cost of
> more memory usage, at most of VETH_RING_SIZE(256) + PP_ALLOC_CACHE_SIZE(128)
> pages is used.
I would say the memory footprint is not so significative compared to the
performance improvement (>= 15%) in this particular case. In particular I think
in most of the cases we will recycle into ptr_ring:
- 4K pages: 256*4KB ~ 1MB
- 64K pages: 256*64KB ~ 16MB
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> IMHO, it seems better to limit the memory usage as much as possible, or provide a
> way to disable/enable page pool for user.
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
