On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:06:25 -0800 Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer > <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:29:54 -0800 > > Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On 14/02/2017 3:45 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer > >> >> <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> It is important to understand that there are two cases for the cost of > >> >>> an atomic op, which depend on the cache-coherency state of the > >> >>> cacheline. > >> >>> > >> >>> Measured on Skylake CPU i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz > >> >>> > >> >>> (1) Local CPU atomic op : 27 cycles(tsc) 6.776 ns > >> >>> (2) Remote CPU atomic op: 260 cycles(tsc) 64.964 ns > >> >>> > >> >> Okay, it seems you guys really want a patch that I said was not giving > >> >> good results > >> >> > >> >> Let me publish the numbers I get , adding or not the last (and not > >> >> official) patch. > >> >> > >> >> If I _force_ the user space process to run on the other node, > >> >> then the results are not the ones Alex or you are expecting. > >> >> > >> >> I have with this patch about 2.7 Mpps of this silly single TCP flow, > >> >> and 3.5 Mpps without it. > >> >> > >> >> lpaa24:~# sar -n DEV 1 10 | grep eth0 | grep Ave > >> >> Average: eth0 2699243.20 16663.70 1354783.36 1079.95 > >> >> 0.00 0.00 4.50 > >> >> > >> >> Profile of the cpu on NUMA node 1 ( netserver consuming data ) : > >> >> > >> >> 54.73% [kernel] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string > >> >> 31.07% [kernel] [k] skb_release_data > >> >> 4.24% [kernel] [k] skb_copy_datagram_iter > >> >> 1.35% [kernel] [k] copy_page_to_iter > >> >> 0.98% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock > >> >> 0.90% [kernel] [k] skb_release_head_state > >> >> 0.60% [kernel] [k] tcp_transmit_skb > >> >> 0.51% [kernel] [k] mlx4_en_xmit > >> >> 0.33% [kernel] [k] ___cache_free > >> >> 0.28% [kernel] [k] tcp_rcv_established > >> >> > >> >> Profile of cpu handling mlx4 softirqs (NUMA node 0) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 48.00% [kernel] [k] mlx4_en_process_rx_cq > >> >> 12.92% [kernel] [k] napi_gro_frags > >> >> 7.28% [kernel] [k] inet_gro_receive > >> >> 7.17% [kernel] [k] tcp_gro_receive > >> >> 5.10% [kernel] [k] dev_gro_receive > >> >> 4.87% [kernel] [k] skb_gro_receive > >> >> 2.45% [kernel] [k] mlx4_en_prepare_rx_desc > >> >> 2.04% [kernel] [k] __build_skb > >> >> 1.02% [kernel] [k] napi_reuse_skb.isra.95 > >> >> 1.01% [kernel] [k] tcp4_gro_receive > >> >> 0.65% [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_alloc > >> >> 0.45% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock > >> >> > >> >> Without the latest patch (the exact patch series v3 I submitted), > >> >> thus with this atomic_inc() in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq instead of only > >> >> reads. > >> >> > >> >> lpaa24:~# sar -n DEV 1 10|grep eth0|grep Ave > >> >> Average: eth0 3566768.50 25638.60 1790345.69 1663.51 > >> >> 0.00 0.00 4.50 > >> >> > >> >> Profiles of the two cpus : > >> >> > >> >> 74.85% [kernel] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string > >> >> 6.42% [kernel] [k] skb_release_data > >> >> 5.65% [kernel] [k] skb_copy_datagram_iter > >> >> 1.83% [kernel] [k] copy_page_to_iter > >> >> 1.59% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock > >> >> 1.48% [kernel] [k] skb_release_head_state > >> >> 0.72% [kernel] [k] tcp_transmit_skb > >> >> 0.68% [kernel] [k] mlx4_en_xmit > >> >> 0.43% [kernel] [k] page_frag_free > >> >> 0.38% [kernel] [k] ___cache_free > >> >> 0.37% [kernel] [k] tcp_established_options > >> >> 0.37% [kernel] [k] __ip_local_out > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 37.98% [kernel] [k] mlx4_en_process_rx_cq > >> >> 26.47% [kernel] [k] napi_gro_frags > >> >> 7.02% [kernel] [k] inet_gro_receive > >> >> 5.89% [kernel] [k] tcp_gro_receive > >> >> 5.17% [kernel] [k] dev_gro_receive > >> >> 4.80% [kernel] [k] skb_gro_receive > >> >> 2.61% [kernel] [k] __build_skb > >> >> 2.45% [kernel] [k] mlx4_en_prepare_rx_desc > >> >> 1.59% [kernel] [k] napi_reuse_skb.isra.95 > >> >> 0.95% [kernel] [k] tcp4_gro_receive > >> >> 0.51% [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_alloc > >> >> 0.42% [kernel] [k] __inet_lookup_established > >> >> 0.34% [kernel] [k] swiotlb_sync_single_for_cpu > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> So probably this will need further analysis, outside of the scope of > >> >> this patch series. > >> >> > >> >> Could we now please Ack this v3 and merge it ? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks. > >> > > >> > Thanks Eric. > >> > > >> > As the previous series caused hangs, we must run functional regression tests > >> > over this series as well. > >> > Run has already started, and results will be available tomorrow morning. > >> > > >> > In general, I really like this series. The re-factorization looks more > >> > elegant and more correct, functionally. > >> > > >> > However, performance wise: we fear that the numbers will be drastically > >> > lower with this transition to order-0 pages, > >> > because of the (becoming critical) page allocator and dma operations > >> > bottlenecks, especially on systems with costly > >> > dma operations, such as ARM, iommu=on, etc... > >> > >> So to give you an idea I originally came up with the approach used in > >> the Intel drivers when I was dealing with a PowerPC system where the > >> IOMMU was a requirement. With this setup correctly the map/unmap > >> calls should be almost non-existent. Basically the only time we > >> should have to allocate or free a page is if something is sitting on > >> the pages for an excessively long time or if the interrupt is bouncing > >> between memory nodes which forces us to free the memory since it is > >> sitting on the wrong node. > >> > >> > We already have this exact issue in mlx5, where we moved to order-0 > >> > allocations with a fixed size cache, but that was not enough. > >> > Customers of mlx5 have already complained about the performance degradation, > >> > and currently this is hurting our business. > >> > We get a clear nack from our performance regression team regarding doing the > >> > same in mlx4. > >> > >> What form of recycling were you doing? If you were doing the offset > >> based setup then that obviously only gets you so much. The advantage > >> to using the page count is that you get almost a mobius strip effect > >> for your buffers and descriptor rings where you just keep flipping the > >> page offset back and forth via an XOR and the only cost is > >> dma_sync_for_cpu, get_page, dma_sync_for_device instead of having to > >> do the full allocation, mapping, and unmapping. > >> > >> > So, the question is, can we live with this degradation until those > >> > bottleneck challenges are addressed? > >> > Following our perf experts feedback, I cannot just simply Ack. We need to > >> > have a clear plan to close the perf gap or reduce the impact. > >> > >> I think we need to define what is the degradation you are expecting to > >> see. Using the page count based approach should actually be better in > >> some cases than the order 3 page and just walking frags approach since > >> the theoretical reuse is infinite instead of fixed. > >> > >> > Internally, I already implemented "dynamic page-cache" and "page-reuse" > >> > mechanisms in the driver, > >> > and together they totally bridge the performance gap. > >> > That's why I would like to hear from Jesper what is the status of his > >> > page_pool API, it is promising and could totally solve these issues. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Tariq > >> > >> The page pool may provide gains but we have to actually see it before > >> we can guarantee it. If worse comes to worse I might just resort to > >> standardizing the logic used for the Intel driver page count based > >> approach. Then if nothing else we would have a standard path for all > >> the drivers to use if we start going down this route. > > > > With this Intel driver page count based recycle approach, the recycle > > size is tied to the size of the RX ring. As Eric and Tariq discovered. > > And for other performance reasons (memory footprint of walking RX ring > > data-structures), don't want to increase the RX ring sizes. Thus, it > > create two opposite performance needs. That is why I think a more > > explicit approach with a pool is more attractive. > > > > How is this approach doing to work for XDP? > > (XDP doesn't "share" the page, and in-general we don't want the extra > > atomic.) > > The extra atomic is moot since it is we can get rid of that by doing > bulk page count updates. > > Why can't XDP share a page? You have brought up the user space aspect > of things repeatedly but the AF_PACKET patches John did more or less > demonstrated that wasn't the case. What you end up with is you have > to either be providing pure user space pages or pure kernel pages. > You can't have pages being swapped between the two without introducing > security issues. So even with your pool approach it doesn't matter > which way things are run. Your pool is either device to user space, > or device to kernel space and it can't be both without creating > sharing concerns. (I think we are talking past each other here.) > > We absolutely need recycling with XDP, when transmitting out another > > device, and the other devices DMA-TX completion need some way of > > returning this page. > > I fully agree here. However the easiest way of handling this is via > the page count in my opinion. > > > What is basically needed is a standardized callback to allow the remote > > driver to return the page to the originating driver. As we don't have > > a NDP for XDP-forward/transmit yet, we could pass this callback as a > > parameter along with the packet-page to send? > > No. This assumes way too much. Most packets aren't going to be > device to device routing. We have seen this type of thing and > rejected it multiple times. Don't think driver to driver. This is > driver to network stack, socket, device, virtual machine, storage, > etc. The fact is there are many spots where a frame might get > terminated. [...] I fully agree, that XDP need to think further than driver to driver. > This is why I said before what we need to do is have a page destructor > to handle this sort of thing. The idea is you want to have this work > everywhere. Having just drivers do this would make it a nice toy but > completely useless since not too many people are doing > routing/bridging between interfaces. Using the page destructor it is > easy to create a pool of "free" pages that you can then pull your DMA > pages out of or that you can release back into the page allocator. How is this page destructor different from my page_pool RFC implementation? (It basically functions as a page destructor...) Help me understand what I'm missing? Pointers to page_pool discussions * page_pool RFC patchset: - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220132444.18788.50875.stgit@firesoul - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220132812.18788.20431.stgit@firesoul - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220132817.18788.64726.stgit@firesoul - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220132822.18788.19768.stgit@firesoul - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161220132827.18788.8658.stgit@firesoul -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat 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>
