Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: page_pool: optimize page pool page allocation in NUMA scenario

From: Ilias Apalodimas
Date: Thu Jul 07 2022 - 17:49:41 EST


On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 22:14, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/2022 13.35, Guangbin Huang wrote:
> > From: Jie Wang <wangjie125@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently NIC packet receiving performance based on page pool deteriorates
> > occasionally. To analysis the causes of this problem page allocation stats
> > are collected. Here are the stats when NIC rx performance deteriorates:
> >
> > bandwidth(Gbits/s) 16.8 6.91
> > rx_pp_alloc_fast 13794308 21141869
> > rx_pp_alloc_slow 108625 166481
> > rx_pp_alloc_slow_h 0 0
> > rx_pp_alloc_empty 8192 8192
> > rx_pp_alloc_refill 0 0
> > rx_pp_alloc_waive 100433 158289
> > rx_pp_recycle_cached 0 0
> > rx_pp_recycle_cache_full 0 0
> > rx_pp_recycle_ring 362400 420281
> > rx_pp_recycle_ring_full 6064893 9709724
> > rx_pp_recycle_released_ref 0 0
> >
> > The rx_pp_alloc_waive count indicates that a large number of pages' numa
> > node are inconsistent with the NIC device numa node. Therefore these pages
> > can't be reused by the page pool. As a result, many new pages would be
> > allocated by __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow which is time consuming. This
> > causes the NIC rx performance fluctuations.
> >
> > The main reason of huge numa mismatch pages in page pool is that page pool
> > uses alloc_pages_bulk_array to allocate original pages. This function is
> > not suitable for page allocation in NUMA scenario. So this patch uses
> > alloc_pages_bulk_array_node which has a NUMA id input parameter to ensure
> > the NUMA consistent between NIC device and allocated pages.
> >
> > Repeated NIC rx performance tests are performed 40 times. NIC rx bandwidth
> > is higher and more stable compared to the datas above. Here are three test
> > stats, the rx_pp_alloc_waive count is zero and rx_pp_alloc_slow which
> > indicates pages allocated from slow patch is relatively low.
> >
> > bandwidth(Gbits/s) 93 93.9 93.8
> > rx_pp_alloc_fast 60066264 61266386 60938254
> > rx_pp_alloc_slow 16512 16517 16539
> > rx_pp_alloc_slow_ho 0 0 0
> > rx_pp_alloc_empty 16512 16517 16539
> > rx_pp_alloc_refill 473841 481910 481585
> > rx_pp_alloc_waive 0 0 0
> > rx_pp_recycle_cached 0 0 0
> > rx_pp_recycle_cache_full 0 0 0
> > rx_pp_recycle_ring 29754145 30358243 30194023
> > rx_pp_recycle_ring_full 0 0 0
> > rx_pp_recycle_released_ref 0 0 0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jie Wang <wangjie125@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > v2->v3:
> > 1, Delete the #ifdefs
> > 2, Use 'pool->p.nid' in the call to alloc_pages_bulk_array_node()
> >
> > v1->v2:
> > 1, Remove two inappropriate comments.
> > 2, Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of numa_mem_id() for code maintenance.
> > ---
> > net/core/page_pool.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/page_pool.c b/net/core/page_pool.c
> > index f18e6e771993..b74905fcc3a1 100644
> > --- a/net/core/page_pool.c
> > +++ b/net/core/page_pool.c
> > @@ -389,7 +389,8 @@ static struct page *__page_pool_alloc_pages_slow(struct page_pool *pool,
> > /* Mark empty alloc.cache slots "empty" for alloc_pages_bulk_array */
> > memset(&pool->alloc.cache, 0, sizeof(void *) * bulk);
> >
> > - nr_pages = alloc_pages_bulk_array(gfp, bulk, pool->alloc.cache);
> > + nr_pages = alloc_pages_bulk_array_node(gfp, pool->p.nid, bulk,
> > + pool->alloc.cache);
> > if (unlikely(!nr_pages))
> > return NULL;
> >
>

Acked-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx>