[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64f7af75-e6df-7abc-c4ce-82e6ca51fafe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:14:15 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"brouer@...hat.com" <brouer@...hat.com>,
"toke@...hat.com" <toke@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] net: page_pool: Don't use page->private to store
dma_addr_t
On 02/11/2019 12:53 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's great to use the struct page to store its dma mapping, but I am
> worried about extensibility.
> page_pool is evolving, and it would need several more per-page fields.
> One of them would be pageref_bias, a planned optimization to reduce the
> number of the costly atomic pageref operations (and replace existing
> code in several drivers).
>
But the point about pageref_bias is to place it in a different cache line than "struct page"
The major cost is having a cache line bouncing between producer and consumer.
pageref_bias means the producer only have to read the "struct page" and not dirty it
in the case the page can be recycled.
> I would replace this dma field with a pointer to an extensible struct,
> that would contain the dma mapping (and other stuff in the near future).
> This pointer fits perfectly with the existing unsigned long private;
> they can share the memory, for both 32- and 64-bits systems.
>
> The only downside is one more pointer de-reference. This should be perf
> tested.
> However, when introducing the page refcnt bias optimization into
> page_pool, I believe the perf gain would be guaranteed.
Only in some cases perhaps (when the cache line can be dirtied without performance hit)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists