[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3DD728CA-CF0B-4F26-AF64-4E1C357D0F0C@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:42:47 -0800
From: "Jonathan Lemon" <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To: "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: "Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, mcroce@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 2/3] net: page_pool: add the possibility to
sync DMA memory for device
On 20 Nov 2019, at 9:49, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:54:18 +0200
> Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> Introduce the following parameters in order to add the possibility to
>> sync
>> DMA memory for device before putting allocated pages in the page_pool
>> caches:
>> - PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV: if set in page_pool_params flags, all pages
>> that
>> the driver gets from page_pool will be DMA-synced-for-device
>> according
>> to the length provided by the device driver. Please note
>> DMA-sync-for-CPU
>> is still device driver responsibility
>> - offset: DMA address offset where the DMA engine starts copying rx
>> data
>> - max_len: maximum DMA memory size page_pool is allowed to flush.
>> This
>> is currently used in __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow routine when
>> pages
>> are allocated from page allocator
>> These parameters are supposed to be set by device drivers.
>>
>> This optimization reduces the length of the DMA-sync-for-device.
>> The optimization is valid because pages are initially
>> DMA-synced-for-device as defined via max_len. At RX time, the driver
>> will perform a DMA-sync-for-CPU on the memory for the packet length.
>> What is important is the memory occupied by packet payload, because
>> this is the area CPU is allowed to read and modify. As we don't track
>> cache-lines written into by the CPU, simply use the packet payload
>> length
>> as dma_sync_size at page_pool recycle time. This also take into
>> account
>> any tail-extend.
>>
>> Tested-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
>> ---
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
>
> [...]
>> @@ -281,8 +309,8 @@ static bool __page_pool_recycle_direct(struct
>> page *page,
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> -void __page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool,
>> - struct page *page, bool allow_direct)
>> +void __page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool *pool, struct page *page,
>> + unsigned int dma_sync_size, bool allow_direct)
>> {
>> /* This allocator is optimized for the XDP mode that uses
>> * one-frame-per-page, but have fallbacks that act like the
>> @@ -293,6 +321,10 @@ void __page_pool_put_page(struct page_pool
>> *pool,
>> if (likely(page_ref_count(page) == 1)) {
>> /* Read barrier done in page_ref_count / READ_ONCE */
>>
>> + if (pool->p.flags & PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV)
>> + page_pool_dma_sync_for_device(pool, page,
>> + dma_sync_size);
>> +
>> if (allow_direct && in_serving_softirq())
>> if (__page_pool_recycle_direct(page, pool))
>> return;
>
> I am slightly concerned this touch the fast-path code. But at-least on
> Intel, I don't think this is measurable. And for the ARM64 board it
> was a huge win... thus I'll accept this.
For the next series:
The "in_serving_softirq()" check shows up on profiling. I'd
like to remove this and just have a "direct" flag, where the
caller takes the responsibility of the correct context.
--
Jonathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists