From: Leon Romanovsky
> Sent: 24 June 2024 10:58
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 06:58:27PM +0530, Anand Khoje wrote:
> > In non FLR context, at times CX-5 requests release of ~8 million FW pages.
> > This needs humongous number of cmd mailboxes, which to be released once
> > the pages are reclaimed. Release of humongous number of cmd mailboxes is
> > consuming cpu time running into many seconds. Which with non preemptible
> > kernels is leading to critical process starving on that cpu’s RQ.
> > To alleviate this, this change restricts the total number of pages
> > a worker will try to reclaim maximum 50K pages in one go.
> > The limit 50K is aligned with the current firmware capacity/limit of
> > releasing 50K pages at once per MLX5_CMD_OP_MANAGE_PAGES + MLX5_PAGES_TAKE
> > device command.
> >
> > Our tests have shown significant benefit of this change in terms of
> > time consumed by dma_pool_free().
> > During a test where an event was raised by HCA
> > to release 1.3 Million pages, following observations were made:
> >
> > - Without this change:
> > Number of mailbox messages allocated was around 20K, to accommodate
> > the DMA addresses of 1.3 million pages.
> > The average time spent by dma_pool_free() to free the DMA pool is between
> > 16 usec to 32 usec.
> > value ------------- Distribution ------------- count
> > 256 | 0
> > 512 |@ 287
> > 1024 |@@@ 1332
> > 2048 |@ 656
> > 4096 |@@@@@ 2599
> > 8192 |@@@@@@@@@@ 4755
> > 16384 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 7545
> > 32768 |@@@@@ 2501
> > 65536 | 0
> >
> > - With this change:
> > Number of mailbox messages allocated was around 800; this was to
> > accommodate DMA addresses of only 50K pages.
> > The average time spent by dma_pool_free() to free the DMA pool in this case
> > lies between 1 usec to 2 usec.
> > value ------------- Distribution ------------- count
> > 256 | 0
> > 512 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 346
> > 1024 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 435
> > 2048 | 0
> > 4096 | 0
> > 8192 | 1
> > 16384 | 0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anand Khoje <anand.a.khoje@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Fixed a nit in patch subject.
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> > index dcf58ef..06eee3a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> > @@ -608,6 +608,7 @@ enum {
> > RELEASE_ALL_PAGES_MASK = 0x4000,
> > };
> >
> > +#define MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES -50000
It would be traditional to enclose a negative value in ().
(Although only 30+ year old compilers would generate unexpected code for
foo-MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES
and you have to go back into the 1970s for
foo=MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES
to be a problem.)
> > static int req_pages_handler(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > unsigned long type, void *data)
> > {
> > @@ -639,9 +640,13 @@ static int req_pages_handler(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >
> > req->dev = dev;
> > req->func_id = func_id;
> > - req->npages = npages;
> > req->ec_function = ec_function;
> > req->release_all = release_all;
> > + if (npages < MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES)
> > + req->npages = MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES;
> > + else
> > + req->npages = npages;
> > +
>
> BTW, this can be written as:
> req->npages = max_t(s32, npages, MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES);
That shouldn't need all the (s32) casts.
(I don't think it even needed them before I relaxed the type check.)
David
>
> Thanks
>
> > INIT_WORK(&req->work, pages_work_handler);
> > queue_work(dev->priv.pg_wq, &req->work);
> > return NOTIFY_OK;
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
