On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 19:15:27 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:15:33AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 18:19 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >
> > > I actually agree, that we should switch to order-0 allocations.
> > >
> > > *BUT* this will cause performance regressions on platforms with
> > > expensive DMA operations (as they no longer amortize the cost of
> > > mapping a larger page).
> >
> >
> > We much prefer reliable behavior, even it it is ~1 % slower than the
> > super-optimized thing that opens highways for attackers.
>
> +1
> It's more important to have deterministic performance at fresh boot
> and after long uptime when high order-N are gone.
Yes, exactly. Doing high order-N pages allocations might look good on
benchmarks on a freshly booted system, but once the page allocator gets
fragmented (after long uptime) then performance characteristics change.
(Discussed this with Christoph Lameter during MM-summit, and he have
seen issues with this kind of fragmentation in production)
> > Anyway, in most cases pages are re-used, so we only call
> > dma_sync_single_range_for_cpu(), and there is no way to avoid this.
> >
> > Using order-0 pages [1] is actually faster, since when we use high-order
> > pages (multiple frames per 'page') we can not reuse the pages.
> >
> > [1] I had a local patch to allocate these pages using a very simple
> > allocator allocating max order (order-10) pages and splitting them into
> > order-0 ages, in order to lower TLB footprint. But I could not measure a
> > gain doing so on x86, at least on my lab machines.
>
> Which driver was that?
> I suspect that should indeed be the case for any driver that
> uses build_skb and <256 copybreak.
>
> Saeed,
> could you please share the performance numbers for mlx5 order-0 vs order-N ?
> You mentioned that there was some performance improvement. We need to know
> how much we'll lose when we turn off order-N.
I'm not sure the compare will be "fair" with the mlx5 driver, because
(1) the N-order page mode (MPWQE) is a hardware feature, plus (2) the
order-0 page mode is done "wrongly" (by preallocating SKBs together
with RX ring entries).
AFAIK it is a hardware feature the MPQWE (Multi-Packet Work Queue
Element) or Striding RQ, for ConnectX4-Lx. Thus, the need to support
two modes in the mlx5 driver.
Commit[1] 461017cb006a ("net/mlx5e: Support RX multi-packet WQE
(Striding RQ)") states this gives a 10-15% performance improvement for
netperf TCP stream (and ability to absorb bursty traffic).
[1] https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/461017cb006
The MPWQE mode, uses order-5 pages. The critical question is: what
happens to the performance when order-5 allocations gets slower (or
impossible) due to page fragmentation? (Notice the page allocator uses
a central lock for order-N pages)
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>