netdev - RE: [PATCH v4] net/mlx5: Reclaim max 50K pages at once

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:13:45 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Leon Romanovsky' <leon@...nel.org>, Anand Khoje
	<anand.a.khoje@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "saeedm@...lanox.com"
	<saeedm@...lanox.com>, "tariqt@...dia.com" <tariqt@...dia.com>,
	"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "kuba@...nel.org"
	<kuba@...nel.org>, "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] net/mlx5: Reclaim max 50K pages at once

From: Leon Romanovsky
> Sent: 24 June 2024 10:58
> 
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 06:58:27PM +0530, Anand Khoje wrote:
> > In non FLR context, at times CX-5 requests release of ~8 million FW pages.
> > This needs humongous number of cmd mailboxes, which to be released once
> > the pages are reclaimed. Release of humongous number of cmd mailboxes is
> > consuming cpu time running into many seconds. Which with non preemptible
> > kernels is leading to critical process starving on that cpu’s RQ.
> > To alleviate this, this change restricts the total number of pages
> > a worker will try to reclaim maximum 50K pages in one go.
> > The limit 50K is aligned with the current firmware capacity/limit of
> > releasing 50K pages at once per MLX5_CMD_OP_MANAGE_PAGES + MLX5_PAGES_TAKE
> > device command.
> >
> > Our tests have shown significant benefit of this change in terms of
> > time consumed by dma_pool_free().
> > During a test where an event was raised by HCA
> > to release 1.3 Million pages, following observations were made:
> >
> > - Without this change:
> > Number of mailbox messages allocated was around 20K, to accommodate
> > the DMA addresses of 1.3 million pages.
> > The average time spent by dma_pool_free() to free the DMA pool is between
> > 16 usec to 32 usec.
> >            value  ------------- Distribution ------------- count
> >              256 |                                         0
> >              512 |@                                        287
> >             1024 |@@@                                      1332
> >             2048 |@                                        656
> >             4096 |@@@@@                                    2599
> >             8192 |@@@@@@@@@@                               4755
> >            16384 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@                          7545
> >            32768 |@@@@@                                    2501
> >            65536 |                                         0
> >
> > - With this change:
> > Number of mailbox messages allocated was around 800; this was to
> > accommodate DMA addresses of only 50K pages.
> > The average time spent by dma_pool_free() to free the DMA pool in this case
> > lies between 1 usec to 2 usec.
> >            value  ------------- Distribution ------------- count
> >              256 |                                         0
> >              512 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@                       346
> >             1024 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@                   435
> >             2048 |                                         0
> >             4096 |                                         0
> >             8192 |                                         1
> >            16384 |                                         0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anand Khoje <anand.a.khoje@...cle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v4:
> >   - Fixed a nit in patch subject.
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c | 7 ++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> > index dcf58ef..06eee3a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/pagealloc.c
> > @@ -608,6 +608,7 @@ enum {
> >  	RELEASE_ALL_PAGES_MASK = 0x4000,
> >  };
> >
> > +#define MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES -50000

It would be traditional to enclose a negative value in ().
(Although only 30+ year old compilers would generate unexpected code for
	foo-MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES
and you have to go back into the 1970s for
	foo=MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES
to be a problem.)

> >  static int req_pages_handler(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >  			     unsigned long type, void *data)
> >  {
> > @@ -639,9 +640,13 @@ static int req_pages_handler(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >
> >  	req->dev = dev;
> >  	req->func_id = func_id;
> > -	req->npages = npages;
> >  	req->ec_function = ec_function;
> >  	req->release_all = release_all;
> > +	if (npages < MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES)
> > +		req->npages = MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES;
> > +	else
> > +		req->npages = npages;
> > +
> 
> BTW, this can be written as:
> 	req->npages = max_t(s32, npages, MAX_RECLAIM_NPAGES);

That shouldn't need all the (s32) casts.
(I don't think it even needed them before I relaxed the type check.)

	David

> 
> Thanks
> 
> >  	INIT_WORK(&req->work, pages_work_handler);
> >  	queue_work(dev->priv.pg_wq, &req->work);
> >  	return NOTIFY_OK;
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)