lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][v2] page_pool: handle page recycle for NUMA_NO_NODE condition
Date
On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 11:40 +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/12/12 18:18, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:34:14 +0800
> > Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +CC Michal, Peter, Greg and Bjorn
> > > Because there has been disscusion about where and how the
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE
> > > should be handled before.
> > >
> > > On 2019/12/12 5:24, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:52:41 +0000
> > > > > Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think it is correct to check that the page nid is
> > > > > > same as
> > > > > > numa_mem_id() if pool is NUMA_NO_NODE. In such case we
> > > > > > should allow
> > > > > > all pages to recycle, because you can't assume where pages
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > allocated from and where they are being handled.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, using numa_mem_id() is not valid, because it takes
> > > > > the numa
> > > > > node id from the executing CPU and the call to
> > > > > __page_pool_put_page()
> > > > > can happen on a remote CPU (e.g. cpumap redirect, and in
> > > > > future
> > > > > SKBs).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return !page_pfmemalloc() &&
> > > > > > ( page_to_nid(page) == pool->p.nid || pool->p.nid ==
> > > > > > NUMA_NO_NODE );
> > > > >
> > > > > Above code doesn't generate optimal ASM code, I suggest:
> > > > >
> > > > > static bool pool_page_reusable(struct page_pool *pool,
> > > > > struct page *page)
> > > > > {
> > > > > return !page_is_pfmemalloc(page) &&
> > > > > pool->p.nid != NUMA_NO_NODE &&
> > > > > page_to_nid(page) == pool->p.nid;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > this is not equivalent to the above. Here in case pool->p.nid
> > > > is
> > > > NUMA_NO_NODE, pool_page_reusable() will always be false.
> > > >
> > > > We can avoid the extra check in data path.
> > > > How about avoiding NUMA_NO_NODE in page_pool altogether, and
> > > > force
> > > > numa_mem_id() as pool->p.nid when user requests NUMA_NO_NODE at
> > > > page
> > > > pool init, as already done in alloc_pages_node().
> > >
> > > That means we will not support page reuse mitigation for
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE,
> > > which is not same semantic that alloc_pages_node() handle
> > > NUMA_NO_NODE,
> > > because alloc_pages_node() will allocate the page based on the
> > > node
> > > of the current running cpu.
> >
> > True, as I wrote (below) my code defines semantics as: that a
> > page_pool
> > configured with NUMA_NO_NODE means skip NUMA checks, and allow
> > recycle
> > regardless of NUMA node page belong to. It seems that you want
> > another
> > semantics.
>
> For driver that does not have page pool support yet, the semantics
> seems
> to be: always allocate and recycle local page(excpet pfmemalloc one).
> Page
> reuse migration moves when the rx interrupt affinity moves(the NAPI
> polling
> context moves accordingly) regardless of the dev_to_node().
>
> It would be good to maintain the above semantics. And rx data page
> seems
> to be close to the cpu that doing the rx cleaning, which means the
> cpu
> can process the buffer quicker?
>
> > I'm open to other semantics. My main concern is performance. The
> > page_pool fast-path for driver recycling use-case of XDP_DROP, have
> > extreme performance requirements, as it needs to compete with
> > driver
> > local recycle tricks (else we cannot use page_pool to simplify
> > drivers).
> > The extreme performance target is 100Gbit/s = 148Mpps = 6.72ns, and
> > in practice I'm measuring 25Mpps = 40ns with Mlx5 driver (single
> > q),
> > and Bjørn is showing 30 Mpps = 33.3ns with i40e. At this level
> > every
> > cycle/instruction counts.
>
> Yes, the performance is a concern too.
> But if the rx page is closer to the cpu, maybe the time taken to
> process
> the buffer can be reduced?
>
> It is good to allocate the rx page close to both cpu and device, but
> if
> both goal can not be reached, maybe we choose to allocate page that
> close
> to cpu?
>

this should be up to user, page pool shouldn't care much.
at init, user picks whatever node he wants
on data path/napi, initially recycling will only occur only on the
initial pool->p.nid. dynamically user can change it via
page_pool_nid_chaned();

using dev_to_node() or numa_mem_id() are totally different scenarios
for different use cases,

Normally you should use numa_mem_id()(close to cpu) for RX data
buffers. and dev_to_node() (close to device) for HW rings descriptors.

if we make the pool biased to one use case then we can't support the
other. thus keep this outside of the pool.
user must use the nid on initialization and change it on the fly if
necessary.

if user chooses NUMA_NO_NODE, then the pool might decide to go with
numa_mem_id() which is my latest proposed solution for this, which at
least will solve the regression.


> >
> > > Also, There seems to be a wild guessing of the node id here,
> > > which has
> > > been disscussed before and has not reached a agreement yet.
> > >
> > > > which will imply recycling without adding any extra condition
> > > > to the
> > > > data path.
> >
> > I love code that moves thing out of our fast-path.
> >
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
> > > > index a6aefe989043..00c99282a306 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
> > > > @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ static int page_pool_init(struct page_pool
> > > > *pool,
> > > >
> > > > memcpy(&pool->p, params, sizeof(pool->p));
> > > >
> > > > + /* overwrite to allow recycling.. */
> > > > + if (pool->p.nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > > > + pool->p.nid = numa_mem_id();
> > > > +
> >
> > The problem is that page_pool_init() is can be initiated from a
> > random
> > CPU, first at driver setup/bringup, and later at other queue
> > changes
> > that can be started via ethtool or XDP attach. (numa_mem_id() picks
> > from running CPU).
>
> Yes, changing ring num or ring depth releases and allocates rx data
> page,
> so using NUMA_NO_NODE to allocate page and alway recycle those page
> may
> has different performance noticable to user.
>
> > As Yunsheng mentioned elsewhere, there is also a dev_to_node()
> > function.
> > Isn't that what we want in a place like this?
> >
> >
> > One issue with dev_to_node() is that in case of !CONFIG_NUMA it
> > returns
> > NUMA_NO_NODE (-1). (And device_initialize() also set it to
> > -1). Thus,
> > in that case we set pool->p.nid = 0, as page_to_nid() will also
> > return
> > zero in that case (as far as I follow the code).
> >
> >
> > > > After a quick look, i don't see any reason why to keep
> > > > NUMA_NO_NODE in
> > > > pool->p.nid..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I have compiled different variants and looked at the ASM code
> > > > > generated by GCC. This seems to give the best result.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1) never recycle emergency pages, regardless of pool nid.
> > > > > > 2) always recycle if pool is NUMA_NO_NODE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, this defines the semantics, that a page_pool configured
> > > > > with
> > > > > NUMA_NO_NODE means skip NUMA checks. I think that sounds
> > > > > okay...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the above change should not add any overhead, a modest
> > > > > > branch
> > > > > > predictor will handle this with no effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > It still annoys me that we keep adding instructions to this
> > > > > code
> > > > > hot-path (I counted 34 bytes and 11 instructions in my
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > function).
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it might be possible to move these NUMA checks
> > > > > to
> > > > > alloc-side (instead of return/recycles side as today), and
> > > > > perhaps
> > > > > only on slow-path when dequeuing from ptr_ring (as recycles
> > > > > that
> > > > > call __page_pool_recycle_direct() will be pinned during
> > > > > NAPI).
> > > > > But lets focus on a smaller fix for the immediate issue...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I know. It annoys me too, but we need recycling to work in
> > > > production : where rings/napi can migrate and numa nodes can be
> > > > NUMA_NO_NODE :-(.
> > > >
> > > >
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 20:37    [W:0.079 / U:2.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site