[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170214203822.72d41268@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:38:22 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ttoukan.linux@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
alexander.duyck@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
tariqt@...lanox.com, kafai@...com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
willemb@...gle.com, bblanco@...mgrid.com, ast@...nel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 08/14] mlx4: use order-0 pages for RX
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:04:26 -0500 (EST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:56:49 +0200
>
> > Internally, I already implemented "dynamic page-cache" and
> > "page-reuse" mechanisms in the driver, and together they totally
> > bridge the performance gap.
It sounds like you basically implemented a page_pool scheme...
> I worry about a dynamically growing page cache inside of drivers
> because it is invisible to the rest of the kernel.
Exactly, that is why I wanted a separate standardized thing, I call the
page_pool, which is part of the MM-tree and interacts with the page
allocator. E.g. it must implement/support a way the page allocator can
reclaim pages from it (admit I didn't implement this in RFC patches).
> It responds only to local needs.
Generally true, but a side effect of recycling these pages, result in
less fragmentation of the page allocator/buddy system.
> The price of the real page allocator comes partly because it can
> respond to global needs.
>
> If a driver consumes some unreasonable percentage of system memory, it
> is keeping that memory from being used from other parts of the system
> even if it would be better for networking to be slightly slower with
> less cache because that other thing that needs memory is more
> important.
(That is why I want to have OOM protection at device level, with the
recycle feedback from page pool we have this knowledge, and further I
wanted to allow blocking a specific RX queue[1])
[1] https://prototype-kernel.readthedocs.io/en/latest/vm/page_pool/design/memory_model_nic.html#userspace-delivery-and-oom
> I think this is one of the primary reasons that the MM guys severely
> chastise us when we build special purpose local caches into networking
> facilities.
>
> And the more I think about it the more I think they are right.
+1
> One path I see around all of this is full integration. Meaning that
> we can free pages into the page allocator which are still DMA mapped.
> And future allocations from that device are prioritized to take still
> DMA mapped objects.
I like this idea. Are you saying that this should be done per DMA
engine or per device?
If this is per device, it is almost the page_pool idea.
> Yes, we still need to make the page allocator faster, but this kind of
> work helps everyone not just 100GB ethernet NICs.
True. And Mel already have some generic improvements to the page
allocator queued for the next merge. And I have the responsibility to
get the bulking API into shape.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists