netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 1/6] net: Split netdev_alloc_frag into __alloc_page_frag and add __napi_alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:06:56 -0800
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...mgrid.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/6] net: Split netdev_alloc_frag into __alloc_page_frag
 and add __napi_alloc_frag

On 12/10/2014 08:02 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 19:40 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
>> I also took the opportunity to refactor the core bits that were placed in
>> __alloc_page_frag.  First I updated the allocation to do either a 32K
>> allocation or an order 0 page.  This is based on the changes in commmit
>> d9b2938aa where it was found that latencies could be reduced in case of
>> failures. 
>
> GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC allocation constraints are quite different.
>
> I have no idea how expensive it is to attempt order-3, order-2, order-1
> allocations with GFP_ATOMIC.

The most likely case is the successful first allocation so I didn't see
much point in trying to optimize for the failure cases.  I personally
prefer to see a fast failure rather than one that is dragged out over
several failed allocation attempts.  In addition I can get away with
several optimization tricks that I cannot with the loop.

> I did an interesting experiment on mlx4 driver, allocating the pages
> needed to store the fragments, using a small layer before the
> alloc_page() that is normally used :
>
> - Attempt order-9 allocations, and use split_page() to give the
> individual pages.
>
> Boost in performance is 10% on TCP bulk receive, because of less TLB
> misses.
>
> With huge amount of memory these days, alloc_page() tend to give pages
> spread all over memory, with poor TLB locality.
>
> With this strategy, a 1024 RX ring is backed by 2 huge pages only.

That is an interesting idea.  I wonder if there would be a similar
benefit for small packets.  If nothing else I might try a few
experiments with ixgbe to see if I can take advantage of something similar.

- Alex


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html