linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] page

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YFofANKiR3tD9zgm@enceladus>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:01:52 +0200
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>
Cc:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] page_pool: recycle buffers

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:55:31PM +0000, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > > > > >

[...]

> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the testing!
> > > > > Any chance you can get a perf measurement on this?
> > > >
> > > > I guess you mean perf-report (--stdio) output, right?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yea,
> > > As hinted below, I am just trying to figure out if on Alexander's platform the
> > > cost of syncing, is bigger that free-allocate. I remember one armv7 were that
> > > was the case.
> > >
> > > > > Is DMA syncing taking a substantial amount of your cpu usage?
> > > >
> > > > (+1 this is an important question)
> 
> Sure, I'll drop perf tools to my test env and share the results,
> maybe tomorrow or in a few days.
> From what I know for sure about MIPS and my platform,
> post-Rx synching (dma_sync_single_for_cpu()) is a no-op, and
> pre-Rx (dma_sync_single_for_device() etc.) is a bit expensive.
> I always have sane page_pool->pp.max_len value (smth about 1668
> for MTU of 1500) to minimize the overhead.
> 
> By the word, IIRC, all machines shipped with mvpp2 have hardware
> cache coherency units and don't suffer from sync routines at all.
> That may be the reason why mvpp2 wins the most from this series.

Yep exactly. It's also the reason why you explicitly have to opt-in using the
recycling (by marking the skb for it), instead of hiding the feature in the
page pool internals 

Cheers
/Ilias

> 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210323153550.130385-1-alobakin@pm.me
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > That would be the same as for mvneta:
> >
> > Overhead  Shared Object     Symbol
> >   24.10%  [kernel]          [k] __pi___inval_dcache_area
> >   23.02%  [mvneta]          [k] mvneta_rx_swbm
> >    7.19%  [kernel]          [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> >
> > Anyway, I tried to use the recycling *and* napi_build_skb on mvpp2,
> > and I get lower packet rate than recycling alone.
> > I don't know why, we should investigate it.
> 
> mvpp2 driver doesn't use napi_consume_skb() on its Tx completion path.
> As a result, NAPI percpu caches get refilled only through
> kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(), and most of skbuff_head recycling
> doesn't work.
> 
> > Regards,
> > --
> > per aspera ad upstream
> 
> Oh, I love that one!
> 
> Al
>