Message-ID: <CAHS8izPpWZvOSswHP0n-_nBiUMw8Ay2iM4yFE-HZenHv51iBHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:21:21 -0800
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, hawk@...nel.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, 
	linyunsheng@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/4] skbuff: Optimization of SKB coalescing
 for page pool

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 7:38 PM Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 10:18 AM Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 2:54 AM Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In order to address the issues encountered with commit 1effe8ca4e34
> > > ("skbuff: fix coalescing for page_pool fragment recycling"), the
> > > combination of the following condition was excluded from skb coalescing:
> > >
> > > from->pp_recycle = 1
> > > from->cloned = 1
> > > to->pp_recycle = 1
> > >
> > > However, with page pool environments, the aforementioned combination can
> > > be quite common(ex. NetworkMananger may lead to the additional
> > > packet_type being registered, thus the cloning). In scenarios with a
> > > higher number of small packets, it can significantly affect the success
> > > rate of coalescing. For example, considering packets of 256 bytes size,
> > > our comparison of coalescing success rate is as follows:
> > >
> > > Without page pool: 70%
> > > With page pool: 13%
> > >
> > > Consequently, this has an impact on performance:
> > >
> > > Without page pool: 2.57 Gbits/sec
> > > With page pool: 2.26 Gbits/sec
> > >
> > > Therefore, it seems worthwhile to optimize this scenario and enable
> > > coalescing of this particular combination. To achieve this, we need to
> > > ensure the correct increment of the "from" SKB page's page pool
> > > reference count (pp_ref_count).
> > >
> > > Following this optimization, the success rate of coalescing measured in
> > > our environment has improved as follows:
> > >
> > > With page pool: 60%
> > >
> > > This success rate is approaching the rate achieved without using page
> > > pool, and the performance has also been improved:
> > >
> > > With page pool: 2.52 Gbits/sec
> > >
> > > Below is the performance comparison for small packets before and after
> > > this optimization. We observe no impact to packets larger than 4K.
> > >
> > > packet size     before      after       improved
> > > (bytes)         (Gbits/sec) (Gbits/sec)
> > > 128             1.19        1.27        7.13%
> > > 256             2.26        2.52        11.75%
> > > 512             4.13        4.81        16.50%
> > > 1024            6.17        6.73        9.05%
> > > 2048            14.54       15.47       6.45%
> > > 4096            25.44       27.87       9.52%
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/net/page_pool/helpers.h |  5 ++++
> > >  net/core/skbuff.c               | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h b/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h
> > > index 9dc8eaf8a959..268bc9d9ffd3 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/page_pool/helpers.h
> > > @@ -278,6 +278,11 @@ static inline long page_pool_unref_page(struct page *page, long nr)
> > >         return ret;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +static inline void page_pool_ref_page(struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > +       atomic_long_inc(&page->pp_ref_count);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static inline bool page_pool_is_last_ref(struct page *page)
> > >  {
> > >         /* If page_pool_unref_page() returns 0, we were the last user */
> > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > index 7e26b56cda38..3c2515a29376 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > > @@ -947,6 +947,24 @@ static bool skb_pp_recycle(struct sk_buff *skb, void *data, bool napi_safe)
> > >         return napi_pp_put_page(virt_to_page(data), napi_safe);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * skb_pp_frag_ref() - Increase fragment reference count of a page
> > > + * @page:      page of the fragment on which to increase a reference
> > > + *
> > > + * Increase fragment reference count (pp_ref_count) on a page, but if it is
> > > + * not a page pool page, fallback to increase a reference(_refcount) on a
> > > + * normal page.
> > > + */
> > > +static void skb_pp_frag_ref(struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct page *head_page = compound_head(page);
> > > +
> > > +       if (likely(is_pp_page(head_page)))
> > > +               page_pool_ref_page(head_page);
> > > +       else
> > > +               page_ref_inc(head_page);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > I am confused by this, why add a new helper instead of modifying the
> > existing helper, skb_frag_ref()?
> >
> > My mental model is that if the net stack wants to acquire a reference
> > on a frag, it calls skb_frag_ref(), and if it wants to drop a
> > reference on a frag, it should call skb_frag_unref(). Internally
> > skb_frag_ref/unref() can do all sorts of checking to decide whether to
> > increment page->refcount or page->pp_ref_count. I can't wrap my head
> > around the introduction of skb_pp_frag_ref(), but no equivalent
> > skb_pp_frag_unref().
> >
> > But even if skb_pp_frag_unref() was added, when should the net stack
> > use skb_frag_ref/unref, and when should the stack use
> > skb_pp_ref/unref? The docs currently describe what the function does,
> > but when a program unfamiliar with the page pool should use it.
> >
> > >  static void skb_kfree_head(void *head, unsigned int end_offset)
> > >  {
> > >         if (end_offset == SKB_SMALL_HEAD_HEADROOM)
> > > @@ -5769,17 +5787,12 @@ bool skb_try_coalesce(struct sk_buff *to, struct sk_buff *from,
> > >                 return false;
> > >
> > >         /* In general, avoid mixing page_pool and non-page_pool allocated
> > > -        * pages within the same SKB. Additionally avoid dealing with clones
> > > -        * with page_pool pages, in case the SKB is using page_pool fragment
> > > -        * references (page_pool_alloc_frag()). Since we only take full page
> > > -        * references for cloned SKBs at the moment that would result in
> > > -        * inconsistent reference counts.
> > > -        * In theory we could take full references if @from is cloned and
> > > -        * !@to->pp_recycle but its tricky (due to potential race with
> > > -        * the clone disappearing) and rare, so not worth dealing with.
> > > +        * pages within the same SKB. In theory we could take full
> > > +        * references if @from is cloned and !@to->pp_recycle but its
> > > +        * tricky (due to potential race with the clone disappearing) and
> > > +        * rare, so not worth dealing with.
> > >          */
> > > -       if (to->pp_recycle != from->pp_recycle ||
> > > -           (from->pp_recycle && skb_cloned(from)))
> > > +       if (to->pp_recycle != from->pp_recycle)
> > >                 return false;
> > >
> > >         if (len <= skb_tailroom(to)) {
> > > @@ -5836,8 +5849,12 @@ bool skb_try_coalesce(struct sk_buff *to, struct sk_buff *from,
> > >         /* if the skb is not cloned this does nothing
> > >          * since we set nr_frags to 0.
> > >          */
> > > -       for (i = 0; i < from_shinfo->nr_frags; i++)
> > > -               __skb_frag_ref(&from_shinfo->frags[i]);
> > > +       if (from->pp_recycle)
> > > +               for (i = 0; i < from_shinfo->nr_frags; i++)
> > > +                       skb_pp_frag_ref(skb_frag_page(&from_shinfo->frags[i]));
> > > +       else
> > > +               for (i = 0; i < from_shinfo->nr_frags; i++)
> > > +                       __skb_frag_ref(&from_shinfo->frags[i]);
> >
> > You added a check here to use skb_pp_frag_ref() instead of
> > skb_frag_ref() here, but it's not clear to me why other callsites of
> > skb_frag_ref() don't need to be modified in the same way after your
> > patch.
> >
> > After your patch:
> >
> > skb_frag_ref() will always increment page->_refcount
> > skb_frag_unref() will either decrement page->_refcount or decrement
> > page->pp_ref_count (depending on the value of skb->pp_recycle).
> > skb_pp_frag_ref() will either increment page->_refcount or increment
> > page->pp_ref_count (depending on the value of is_pp_page(), not
> > skb->pp_recycle).
> > skb_pp_frag_unref() doesn't exist.
> >
> > Is this not confusing? Can we streamline things:
> >
> > skb_frag_ref() increments page->pp_ref_count for skb->pp_recycle,
> > page->_refcount otherwise.
> > skb_frag_unref() decrement page->pp_ref_count for skb->pp_recycle,
> > page->_refcount otherwise.
> >
> > Or am I missing something that causes us to require this asymmetric
> > reference counting?
> >
>
> This idea was previously implemented, as shown here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211009093724.10539-5-linyunsheng@huawei.com/.
> But implementing this would result in some unnecessary overhead, since
> currently, 'skb_try_coalesce' is the only place where the page pool
> reference count for skb frag might be increased. I would prefer to
> move the logic to '__skb_frag_ref' when such a need becomes more
> common. Thanks!
>

Is it possible/desirable to add a comment to skb_frag_ref() that it
should not be used with skb->pp_recycle? At least I was tripped by
this, but maybe it's considered obvious somehow.

But I feel like this maybe needs to be fixed. Why does the page_pool
need a separate page->pp_ref_count? Why not use page->_refcount like
the rest of the code? Is there a history here behind this decision
that you can point me to? It seems to me that
incrementing/decrementing page->pp_ref_count may be equivalent to
doing the same on page->_refcount.

> > >
> > >         to->truesize += delta;
> > >         to->len += len;
> > > --
> > > 2.31.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Mina



-- 
Thanks,
Mina

Powered by blists - more mailing lists