| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20181102142024.GA18343@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 22:20:24 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"pstaszewski@...are.pl" <pstaszewski@...are.pl>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
"ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
"yoel@...knet.dk" <yoel@...knet.dk>,
"mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: Kernel 4.19 network performance - forwarding/routing normal
users traffic
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:40:37PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:23:56 +0800
> Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:23:19PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 23:27 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 10:22:13AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > > > wrote:
> > > > ... ...
> > > > > Section copied out:
> > > > >
> > > > > mlx5e_poll_tx_cq
> > > > > |
> > > > > --16.34%--napi_consume_skb
> > > > > |
> > > > > |--12.65%--__free_pages_ok
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | --11.86%--free_one_page
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |--10.10%
> > > > > --queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | --0.65%--_raw_spin_lock
> > > >
> > > > This callchain looks like it is freeing higher order pages than order
> > > > 0:
> > > > __free_pages_ok is only called for pages whose order are bigger than
> > > > 0.
> > >
> > > mlx5 rx uses only order 0 pages, so i don't know where these high order
> > > tx SKBs are coming from..
> >
> > Perhaps here:
> > __netdev_alloc_skb(), __napi_alloc_skb(), __netdev_alloc_frag() and
> > __napi_alloc_frag() will all call page_frag_alloc(), which will use
> > __page_frag_cache_refill() to get an order 3 page if possible, or fall
> > back to an order 0 page if order 3 page is not available.
> >
> > I'm not sure if your workload will use the above code path though.
>
> TL;DR: this is order-0 pages (code-walk trough proof below)
>
> To Aaron, the network stack *can* call __free_pages_ok() with order-0
> pages, via:
>
> static void skb_free_head(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> unsigned char *head = skb->head;
>
> if (skb->head_frag)
> skb_free_frag(head);
> else
> kfree(head);
> }
>
> static inline void skb_free_frag(void *addr)
> {
> page_frag_free(addr);
> }
>
> /*
> * Frees a page fragment allocated out of either a compound or order 0 page.
> */
> void page_frag_free(void *addr)
> {
> struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(addr);
>
> if (unlikely(put_page_testzero(page)))
> __free_pages_ok(page, compound_order(page));
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_frag_free);
I think here is a problem - order 0 pages are freed directly to buddy,
bypassing per-cpu-pages. This might be the reason lock contention
appeared on free path. Can someone apply below diff and see if lock
contention is gone?
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index e2ef1c17942f..65c0ae13215a 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -4554,8 +4554,14 @@ void page_frag_free(void *addr)
{
struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(addr);
- if (unlikely(put_page_testzero(page)))
- __free_pages_ok(page, compound_order(page));
+ if (unlikely(put_page_testzero(page))) {
+ unsigned int order = compound_order(page);
+
+ if (order == 0)
+ free_unref_page(page);
+ else
+ __free_pages_ok(page, order);
+ }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_frag_free);
> Notice for the mlx5 driver it support several RX-memory models, so it
> can be hard to follow, but from the perf report output we can see that
> is uses mlx5e_skb_from_cqe_linear, which use build_skb.
>
> --13.63%--mlx5e_skb_from_cqe_linear
> |
> --5.02%--build_skb
> |
> --1.85%--__build_skb
> |
> --1.00%--kmem_cache_alloc
>
> /* build_skb() is wrapper over __build_skb(), that specifically
> * takes care of skb->head and skb->pfmemalloc
> * This means that if @frag_size is not zero, then @data must be backed
> * by a page fragment, not kmalloc() or vmalloc()
> */
> struct sk_buff *build_skb(void *data, unsigned int frag_size)
> {
> struct sk_buff *skb = __build_skb(data, frag_size);
>
> if (skb && frag_size) {
> skb->head_frag = 1;
> if (page_is_pfmemalloc(virt_to_head_page(data)))
> skb->pfmemalloc = 1;
> }
> return skb;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(build_skb);
>
> It still doesn't prove, that the @data is backed by by a order-0 page.
> For the mlx5 driver is uses mlx5e_page_alloc_mapped ->
> page_pool_dev_alloc_pages(), and I can see perf report using
> __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow().
>
> The setup for page_pool in mlx5 uses order=0.
>
> /* Create a page_pool and register it with rxq */
> pp_params.order = 0;
> pp_params.flags = 0; /* No-internal DMA mapping in page_pool */
> pp_params.pool_size = pool_size;
> pp_params.nid = cpu_to_node(c->cpu);
> pp_params.dev = c->pdev;
> pp_params.dma_dir = rq->buff.map_dir;
>
> /* page_pool can be used even when there is no rq->xdp_prog,
> * given page_pool does not handle DMA mapping there is no
> * required state to clear. And page_pool gracefully handle
> * elevated refcnt.
> */
> rq->page_pool = page_pool_create(&pp_params);
> if (IS_ERR(rq->page_pool)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(rq->page_pool);
> rq->page_pool = NULL;
> goto err_free;
> }
> err = xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model(&rq->xdp_rxq,
> MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL, rq->page_pool);
Thanks for the detailed analysis, I'll need more time to understand the
whole picture :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists