[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191224010103.56407-1-mcroce@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 02:01:01 +0100
From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...hat.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>,
Tomislav Tomasic <tomislav.tomasic@...tura.hr>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Stefan Chulski <stefanc@...vell.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>
Subject: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support
This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
stock net-next with frag allocator:
rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
this patchset with page_pool:
rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
27.68% [kernel] [k] __page_pool_clean_page
9.79% [kernel] [k] get_page_from_freelist
7.18% [kernel] [k] free_unref_page
4.64% [kernel] [k] build_skb
4.63% [kernel] [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
3.83% [mvpp2] [k] mvpp2_poll
3.64% [kernel] [k] eth_type_trans
3.61% [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_free
3.03% [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_alloc
2.76% [kernel] [k] dev_gro_receive
2.69% [mvpp2] [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
2.68% [kernel] [k] page_frag_free
1.83% [kernel] [k] inet_gro_receive
1.74% [kernel] [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
1.70% [kernel] [k] __build_skb
1.47% [kernel] [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
1.36% [mvpp2] [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
1.29% [kernel] [k] tcf_action_exec
I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.
Any idea on why I get such bad numbers?
Another reason to send it as RFC is that I'm not fully convinced on how to
use the page_pool given the HW limitation of the BM.
The driver currently uses, for every CPU, a page_pool for short packets and
another for long ones. The driver also has 4 rx queue per port, so every
RXQ #1 will share the short and long page pools of CPU #1.
This means that for every RX queue I call xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() twice,
on two different page_pool, can this be a problem?
As usual, ideas are welcome.
Matteo Croce (2):
mvpp2: use page_pool allocator
mvpp2: memory accounting
drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h | 7 +
.../net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c | 142 +++++++++++++++---
3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
--
2.24.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists