Message-ID: <20231020095952.11055-2-linyunsheng@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:59:48 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next v12 1/5] page_pool: unify frag_count handling in page_pool_is_last_frag()

Currently when page_pool_create() is called with
PP_FLAG_PAGE_FRAG flag, page_pool_alloc_pages() is only
allowed to be called under the below constraints:
1. page_pool_fragment_page() need to be called to setup
   page->pp_frag_count immediately.
2. page_pool_defrag_page() often need to be called to drain
   the page->pp_frag_count when there is no more user will
   be holding on to that page.

Those constraints exist in order to support a page to be
split into multi fragments.

And those constraints have some overhead because of the
cache line dirtying/bouncing and atomic update.

Those constraints are unavoidable for case when we need a
page to be split into more than one fragment, but there is
also case that we want to avoid the above constraints and
their overhead when a page can't be split as it can only
hold a fragment as requested by user, depending on different
use cases:
use case 1: allocate page without page splitting.
use case 2: allocate page with page splitting.
use case 3: allocate page with or without page splitting
            depending on the fragment size.

Currently page pool only provide page_pool_alloc_pages() and
page_pool_alloc_frag() API to enable the 1 & 2 separately,
so we can not use a combination of 1 & 2 to enable 3, it is
not possible yet because of the per page_pool flag
PP_FLAG_PAGE_FRAG.

So in order to allow allocating unsplit page without the
overhead of split page while still allow allocating split
page we need to remove the per page_pool flag in
page_pool_is_last_frag(), as best as I can think of, it seems
there are two methods as below:
1. Add per page flag/bit to indicate a page is split or
   not, which means we might need to update that flag/bit
   everytime the page is recycled, dirtying the cache line
   of 'struct page' for use case 1.
2. Unify the page->pp_frag_count handling for both split and
   unsplit page by assuming all pages in the page pool is split
   into a big fragment initially.

As page pool already supports use case 1 without dirtying the
cache line of 'struct page' whenever a page is recyclable, we
need to support the above use case 3 with minimal overhead,
especially not adding any noticeable overhead for use case 1,
and we are already doing an optimization by not updating
pp_frag_count in page_pool_defrag_page() for the last fragment
user, this patch chooses to unify the pp_frag_count handling
to support the above use case 3.

There is no noticeable performance degradation and some
justification for unifying the frag_count handling with this
patch applied using a micro-benchmark testing in [1].

1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/bf2591f8-7b3c-4480-bb2c-31dc9da1d6ac@huawei.com/

Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
CC: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
CC: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC: Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>
CC: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
---
 include/net/page_pool/helpers.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 net/core/page_pool.c            | 10 ++++++-
 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h b/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h
index 8f64adf86f5b..759489c037c7 100644
--- a/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h
+++ b/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h
@@ -115,28 +115,49 @@ static inline long page_pool_defrag_page(struct page *page, long nr)
 	long ret;
 
 	/* If nr == pp_frag_count then we have cleared all remaining
-	 * references to the page. No need to actually overwrite it, instead
-	 * we can leave this to be overwritten by the calling function.
+	 * references to the page:
+	 * 1. 'n == 1': no need to actually overwrite it.
+	 * 2. 'n != 1': overwrite it with one, which is the rare case
+	 *              for pp_frag_count draining.
 	 *
-	 * The main advantage to doing this is that an atomic_read is
-	 * generally a much cheaper operation than an atomic update,
-	 * especially when dealing with a page that may be partitioned
-	 * into only 2 or 3 pieces.
+	 * The main advantage to doing this is that not only we avoid a atomic
+	 * update, as an atomic_read is generally a much cheaper operation than
+	 * an atomic update, especially when dealing with a page that may be
+	 * partitioned into only 2 or 3 pieces; but also unify the pp_frag_count
+	 * handling by ensuring all pages have partitioned into only 1 piece
+	 * initially, and only overwrite it when the page is partitioned into
+	 * more than one piece.
 	 */
-	if (atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr)
+	if (atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr) {
+		/* As we have ensured nr is always one for constant case using
+		 * the BUILD_BUG_ON(), only need to handle the non-constant case
+		 * here for pp_frag_count draining, which is a rare case.
+		 */
+		BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(nr) && nr != 1);
+		if (!__builtin_constant_p(nr))
+			atomic_long_set(&page->pp_frag_count, 1);
+
 		return 0;
+	}
 
 	ret = atomic_long_sub_return(nr, &page->pp_frag_count);
 	WARN_ON(ret < 0);
+
+	/* We are the last user here too, reset pp_frag_count back to 1 to
+	 * ensure all pages have been partitioned into 1 piece initially,
+	 * this should be the rare case when the last two fragment users call
+	 * page_pool_defrag_page() currently.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(!ret))
+		atomic_long_set(&page->pp_frag_count, 1);
+
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static inline bool page_pool_is_last_frag(struct page_pool *pool,
-					  struct page *page)
+static inline bool page_pool_is_last_frag(struct page *page)
 {
-	/* If fragments aren't enabled or count is 0 we were the last user */
-	return !(pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_PAGE_FRAG) ||
-	       (page_pool_defrag_page(page, 1) == 0);
+	/* If page_pool_defrag_page() returns 0, we were the last user */
+	return page_pool_defrag_page(page, 1) == 0;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -161,7 +182,7 @@ static inline void page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool,
 	 * allow registering MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL, but shield linker.
 	 */
 #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_POOL
-	if (!page_pool_is_last_frag(pool, page))
+	if (!page_pool_is_last_frag(page))
 		return;
 
 	page_pool_put_defragged_page(pool, page, dma_sync_size, allow_direct);
diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
index 8a9868ea5067..953535cab081 100644
--- a/net/core/page_pool.c
+++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
@@ -376,6 +376,14 @@ static void page_pool_set_pp_info(struct page_pool *pool,
 {
 	page->pp = pool;
 	page->pp_magic |= PP_SIGNATURE;
+
+	/* Ensuring all pages have been split into one fragment initially:
+	 * page_pool_set_pp_info() is only called once for every page when it
+	 * is allocated from the page allocator and page_pool_fragment_page()
+	 * is dirtying the same cache line as the page->pp_magic above, so
+	 * the overhead is negligible.
+	 */
+	page_pool_fragment_page(page, 1);
 	if (pool->p.init_callback)
 		pool->p.init_callback(page, pool->p.init_arg);
 }
@@ -672,7 +680,7 @@ void page_pool_put_page_bulk(struct page_pool *pool, void **data,
 		struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(data[i]);
 
 		/* It is not the last user for the page frag case */
-		if (!page_pool_is_last_frag(pool, page))
+		if (!page_pool_is_last_frag(page))
 			continue;
 
 		page = __page_pool_put_page(pool, page, -1, false);
-- 
2.33.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists