[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+jO1Zbd5w_sCO3muvo=jByWOaXxd9EUjHZiYJSYAATBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:35:49 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
soheil@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: avoid indirect memory pressure calls
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 5:35 PM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>
> Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
> > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:27:41 -0800
> >
> > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 19:46:06 +0100 Florian Westphal wrote:
> > >> There is a noticeable tcp performance regression (loopback or cross-netns),
> > >> seen with iperf3 -Z (sendfile mode) when generic retpolines are needed.
> > >>
> > >> With SK_RECLAIM_THRESHOLD checks gone number of calls to enter/leave
> > >> memory pressure happen much more often. For TCP indirect calls are
> > >> used.
> > >>
> > >> We can't remove the if-set-return short-circuit check in
> > >> tcp_enter_memory_pressure because there are callers other than
> > >> sk_enter_memory_pressure. Doing a check in the sk wrapper too
> > >> reduces the indirect calls enough to recover some performance.
> > >>
> > >> Before,
> > >> 0.00-60.00 sec 322 GBytes 46.1 Gbits/sec receiver
> > >>
> > >> After:
> > >> 0.00-60.04 sec 359 GBytes 51.4 Gbits/sec receiver
> > >>
> > >> "iperf3 -c $peer -t 60 -Z -f g", connected via veth in another netns.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: 4890b686f408 ("net: keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as small as possible")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
> > >
> > > Looks acceptable, Eric?
> > >
> > I'm no Eric, but I'd only change this:
> >
> > + if (!memory_pressure || READ_ONCE(*memory_pressure) == 0)
> >
> > to
> >
> > + if (!memory_pressure || !READ_ONCE(*memory_pressure))
>
> I intentioanlly used '== 0', i found it too easy to miss the '!' before
> 'R'. But maybe I just need better glasses.
Sorry for the delay, I will take a look.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists