Message-ID: <YUMxKhzm+9MDR0jW@apalos.home>
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:57:30 +0300
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>, brouer@...hat.com,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...neuler.org,
        hawk@...nel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, alobakin@...me,
        willemb@...gle.com, cong.wang@...edance.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        haokexin@...il.com, nogikh@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com,
        memxor@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] skbuff: keep track of pp
 page when __skb_frag_ref() is called

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 07:04:54PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2021/9/16 18:38, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 05:33:39PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> On 2021/9/16 16:44, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> >>>>>> appear if we try to pull in your patches on using page pool and recycling
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>>>> for Tx where TSO and skb_split are used?
> >>>>
> >>>> As my understanding, the problem might exists without tx recycling, because a
> >>>> skb from wire would be passed down to the tcp stack and retransmited back to
> >>>> the wire theoretically. As I am not able to setup a configuration to verify
> >>>> and test it and the handling seems tricky, so I am targetting net-next branch
> >>>> instead of net branch.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll be honest, when I came up with the recycling idea for page pool, I
> >>>>>> never intended to support Tx.  I agree with Alexander here,  If people want
> >>>>>> to use it on Tx and think there's value,  we might need to go back to the
> >>>>>> drawing board and see what I've missed.  It's still early and there's a
> >>>>>> handful of drivers using it,  so it will less painful now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, we also need to prototype it to see if there is something missing in the
> >>>> drawing board and how much improvement we get from that:)
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree, page_pool is NOT designed or intended for TX support.
> >>>>> E.g. it doesn't make sense to allocate a page_pool instance per socket, as the backing memory structures for page_pool are too much.
> >>>>> As the number RX-queues are more limited it was deemed okay that we use page_pool per RX-queue, which sacrifice some memory to gain speed.
> >>>>
> >>>> As memtioned before, Tx recycling is based on page_pool instance per socket.
> >>>> it shares the page_pool instance with rx.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, based on feedback from edumazet and dsahern, I am still trying to
> >>>> see if the page pool is meaningful for tx.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The pp_recycle_bit was introduced to make the checking faster, instead of
> >>>>>> getting stuff into cache and check the page signature.  If that ends up
> >>>>>> being counterproductive, we could just replace the entire logic with the
> >>>>>> frag count and the page signature, couldn't we?  In that case we should be
> >>>>>> very cautious and measure potential regression on the standard path.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure "pp_recycle_bit was introduced to make the checking faster" is a
> >>>> valid. The size of "struct page" is only about 9 words(36/72 bytes), which is
> >>>> mostly to be in the same cache line, and both standard path and recycle path have
> >>>> been touching the "struct page", so it seems the overhead for checking signature
> >>>> seems minimal.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that we need to be cautious and measure potential regression on the
> >>>> standard path.
> >>>
> >>> well pp_recycle is on the same cache line boundary with the head_frag we
> >>> need to decide on recycling. After that we start checking page signatures
> >>> etc,  which means the default release path remains mostly unaffected.  
> >>>
> >>> I guess what you are saying here, is that 'struct page' is going to be
> >>> accessed eventually by the default network path,  so there won't be any 
> >>> noticeable performance hit?  What about the other usecases we have
> >>
> >> Yes.
> > 
> > In that case you'd need to call virt_to_head_page() early though, get it
> > and then compare the signature.   I guess that's avoidable by using 
> > frag->bv_page for the fragments?
> 
> If a page of a skb frag is from page pool, It seems frag->bv_page is
> always point to head_page of a compound page, so the calling of
> virt_to_head_page() does not seems necessary.
> 

I was mostly referring to the skb head here and how would you trigger the
recycling path. 

I think we are talking about different things here.  
One idea is to use the last bit of frag->bv_page to identify fragments
allocated from page_pool, which is done today with the signature.

The signature however exists in the head page so my question was, can we rid
of that without having a performance penalty?

IOW in skb_free_head() an we replace:

if (skb_pp_recycle(skb, head)) 
with
if (page->pp_magic & ~0x3UL) == PP_SIGNATURE)
and get rid of the 'bool recycle' argument in __skb_frag_unref()?

> bit 0 of frag->bv_page is different way of indicatior for a pp page,
> it is better we do not confuse with the page signature way. Using
> a bit 0 may give us a free word in 'struct page' if we manage to
> use skb->pp_recycle to indicate a head page of the skb uniquely, meaning
> page->pp_magic can be used for future feature.
> 
> 
> > 
> >>
> >>> for pp_recycle right now?  __skb_frag_unref() in skb_shift() or
> >>> skb_try_coalesce() (the latter can probably be removed tbh).
> >>
> >> If we decide to go with accurate indicator of a pp page, we just need
> >> to make sure network stack use __skb_frag_unref() and __skb_frag_ref()
> >> to put and get a page frag, the indicator checking need only done in
> >> __skb_frag_unref() and __skb_frag_ref(), so the skb_shift() and
> >> skb_try_coalesce() should be fine too.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another way is to use the bit 0 of frag->bv_page ptr to indicate if a frag
> >>>> page is from page pool.
> >>>
> >>> Instead of the 'struct page' signature?  And the pp_recycle bit will
> >>> continue to exist?  
> >>
> >> pp_recycle bit might only exist or is only used for the head page for the skb.
> >> The bit 0 of frag->bv_page ptr can be used to indicate a frag page uniquely.
> >> Doing a memcpying of shinfo or "*fragto = *fragfrom" automatically pass the
> >> indicator to the new shinfo before doing a __skb_frag_ref(), and __skb_frag_ref()
> >> will increment the _refcount or pp_frag_count according to the bit 0 of
> >> frag->bv_page.
> >>
> >> By the way, I also prototype the above idea, and it seems to work well too.
> >>
> > 
> > As long as no one else touches this, it's just another way of identifying a
> > page_pool allocated page.  But are we gaining by that?  Not using
> > virt_to_head_page() as stated above? But in that case you still need to
> > keep pp_recycle around. 
> 
> No, we do not need the pp_recycle, as long as the we make sure __skb_frag_ref()
> is called after memcpying the shinfo or doing "*fragto = *fragfrom".

But we'll have to keep it for the skb head in this case.

Regards
/Ilias

> 
> > 
> >>> .
> >>> Right now the 'naive' explanation on the recycling decision is something like:
> >>>
> >>> if (pp_recycle) <--- recycling bit is set
> >>>     (check page signature) <--- signature matches page pool
> >>> 		(check fragment refcnt) <--- If frags are enabled and is the last consumer
> >>> 			recycle
> >>>
> >>> If we can proove the performance is unaffected when we eliminate the first if,
> >>> then obviously we should remove it.  I'll try running that test here and see,
> >>> but keep in mind I am only testing on an 1GB interface.  Any chance we can get 
> >>> measurements on a beefier hardware using hns3 ?
> >>
> >> Sure, I will try it.
> >> As the kind of performance overhead is small, any performance testcase in mind?
> >>
> > 
> > 'eliminate the first if' wasn't accurate.  I meant switch the first if and
> > check the struct page signature instead.  That would be the best solution
> > imho.  We effectively have a single rule to check if a packet comes from
> > page_pool or not.
> 
> I am not sure what does "switch " means here, if the page signature can
> indicate a pp page uniquely, the "if (pp_recycle)" checking can be removed.
> 
> > 
> > You can start by sending a lot of packets and dropping those immediately.
> > That should put enough stress on the receive path and the allocators and it
> > should give us a rough idea. 
> > 
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> But in general,  I'd be happier if we only had a simple logic in our
> >>>>>> testing for the pages we have to recycle.  Debugging and understanding this
> >>>>>> otherwise will end up being a mess.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> /Ilias
> >>> .
> >>>
> > 
> > Regards
> > /Ilias
> > .
> > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists