[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190704130635.GA10412@apalos>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:06:35 +0300
From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com"
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: stmmac: Introducing support for Page
Pool
Hi Jose,
> Thank you all for your review comments !
>
> From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
>
> > That's why i was concerned on what will happen on > 1000b frames and what the
> > memory pressure is going to be.
> > The trade off here is copying vs mapping/unmapping.
>
> Well, the performance numbers I mentioned are for TSO with default MTU
> (1500) and using iperf3 with zero-copy. Here follows netperf:
>
Ok i guess this should be fine. Here's why.
You'll allocate an extra memory from page pool API which equals
the number of descriptors * 1 page.
You also allocate SKB's to copy the data and recycle the page pool buffers.
So page_pool won't add any significant memory pressure since we expect *all*
it's buffers to be recycled.
The SKBs are allocated anyway in the current driver so bottom line you trade off
some memory (the page_pool buffers) + a memcpy per packet and skip the dma
map/unmap which is the bottleneck in your hardware.
I think it's fine
Cheers
/Ilias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists