Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:41:46 +0530
From:   Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Chalamarla, Tirumalesh" <Tirumalesh.Chalamarla@...ium.com>,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Imran Khan <kimran@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, sgoutham@...iumnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size"

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:35:02PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Catalin Marinas
>> <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:08:52PM +0530, Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
>> >> >>     >> Do you have an explanation on the performance variation when
>> >> >>     >> L1_CACHE_BYTES is changed? We'd need to understand how the network stack
>> >> >>     >> is affected by L1_CACHE_BYTES, in which context it uses it (is it for
>> >> >>     >> non-coherent DMA?).
>> >> >>     >
>> >> >>     > network stack use SKB_DATA_ALIGN to align.
>> >> >>     > ---
>> >> >>     > #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X) (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \
>> >> >>     > ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
>> >> >>     >
>> >> >>     > #define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES
>> >> >>     > ---
>> >> >>     > I think this is the reason of performance regression.
>> >> >>     >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Yes this is the reason for performance regression. Due to increases L1 cache alignment the
>> >> >>     object is coming from next kmalloc slab and skb->truesize is changing from 2304 bytes to
>> >> >>     4352 bytes. This in turn increases sk_wmem_alloc which causes queuing of less send buffers.
>> >>
>> >> With what traffic did you check 'skb->truesize' ? Increase from
>> >> 2304 to 4352 bytes doesn't seem to be real. I checked with ICMP
>> >> pkts with maximum size possible with 1500byte MTU and I don't see
>> >> such a bump. If the bump is observed with Iperf sending TCP packets
>> >> then I suggest to check if TSO is playing a part over here.
>> >
>> > I haven't checked truesize but I added some printks to __alloc_skb() (on
>> > a Juno platform) and the size argument to this function is 1720 on many
>> > occasions. With sizeof(struct skb_shared_info) of 320, the actual data
>> > allocation is exactly 2048 when using 64 byte L1_CACHE_SIZE. With a
>> > 128 byte cache size, it goes slightly over 2K, hence the 4K slab
>> > allocation.
>>
>> Understood but still in my opinion this '4K slab allocation' cannot be
>> considered as an issue with cache line size, there are many network
>> drivers out there which do receive buffer or page recycling to
>> minimize (sometimes almost to zero) the cost of buffer allocation.
>
> The slab allocation shouldn't make much difference (unless you are
> running on a memory constrained system) but I don't understand how
> skb->truesize (which is almost half unused) affects the sk_wmem_alloc
> and its interaction with other bits in the network stack (e.g.
> tcp_limit_output_bytes).
>
> However, I do think it's worth investigating further to fully understand
> the issue.

Absolutely.

>
>> >The 1720 figure surprised me a bit as well since I was
>> > expecting something close to 1500.
>> >
>> > The thing that worries me is that skb->data may be used as a buffer to
>> > DMA into. If that's the case, skb_shared_info is wrongly aligned based
>> > on SMP_CACHE_BYTES only and can lead to corruption on a non-DMA-coherent
>> > platform. It should really be ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN.
>>
>> I didn't get this, if you see __alloc_skb()
>>
>> 229         size = SKB_DATA_ALIGN(size);
>> 230         size += SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info));
>>
>> both DMA buffer and skb_shared_info are aligned to a cacheline separately,
>> considering 128byte alignment guarantees 64byte alignment as well, how
>> will this lead to corruption ?
>
> It's the other way around: you align only to 64 byte while running on a
> platform with 128 byte cache lines and non-coherent DMA.

Okay, I mistook your statement. This is indeed a valid statement.

>> And if platform is non-DMA-coherent then again it's the driver which
>> should take of coherency by using appropriate map/unmap APIs and
>> should avoid any cacheline sharing btw DMA buffer and skb_shared_info.
>
> The problem is that the streaming DMA API can only work correctly on
> cacheline-aligned buffers (because of the cache invalidation it performs
> for DMA ops; even with clean&invalidate, the operation isn't always safe
> if a cacheline is shared between DMA and CPU buffers). In the skb case,
> we could have the data potentially sharing the last addresses of a DMA
> buffer with struct skb_shared_info.
>
> We may be able to get away with SKB_DATA_ALIGN not using
> ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN *if* skb_shared_info is *not* written before or during
> an inbound DMA transfer (though such tricks are arch specific).
>
>> > IIUC, the Cavium platform has coherent DMA, so it shouldn't be an issue
>> > if we go back to 64 byte cache lines.
>>
>> Yes, Cavium platform is DMA coherent and there is no issue with reverting back
>> to 64byte cachelines. But do we want to do this because some platform has a
>> performance issue and this is an easy way to solve it. IMHO there seems
>> to be many ways to solve performance degradation within the driver itself, and
>> if those doesn't work then probably it makes sense to revert this.
>
> My initial thought was to revert the change because it was causing a
> significant performance regression on certain SoC. But given that it
> took over a year for people to follow up, it doesn't seem too urgent, so
> we should rather try to understand the issue and potential side effects
> of moving back to a 64 byte cache line.

Yes.

Thanks,
Sunil.

>
> --
> Catalin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists