| Message ID | 20240729183038.1959-2-eladwf@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: ethernet: mtk_eth_soc: improve RX performance | expand |
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:29:54PM +0300, Elad Yifee wrote: > Utilize kernel prefetch methods for faster cache line access. > This change boosts driver performance, > allowing the CPU to handle about 5% more packets/sec. > > Signed-off-by: Elad Yifee <eladwf@gmail.com> > --- > Changes in v2: > - use net_prefetchw as suggested by Joe Damato > - add (NET_SKB_PAD + eth->ip_align) offset to prefetched data > - use eth->ip_align instead of NET_IP_ALIGN as it could be 0, > depending on the platform > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c > index 16ca427cf4c3..4d0052dbe3f4 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c [...] > @@ -2143,6 +2147,7 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, > dma_unmap_single(eth->dma_dev, ((u64)trxd.rxd1 | addr64), > ring->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); > > + net_prefetch(data + NET_SKB_PAD + eth->ip_align); > skb = build_skb(data, ring->frag_size); > if (unlikely(!skb)) { > netdev->stats.rx_dropped++; > @@ -2150,7 +2155,8 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, > goto skip_rx; > } > > - skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN); > + net_prefetchw(skb->data); > + skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD + eth->ip_align); Based on the code in mtk_probe, I am guessing that only MTK_SOC_MT7628 can DMA to unaligned addresses, because for everything else eth->ip_align would be 0. Is that right? I am asking because the documentation in Documentation/core-api/unaligned-memory-access.rst refers to the case you mention, NET_IP_ALIGN = 0, suggesting that this is intentional for performance reasons on powerpc: One notable exception here is powerpc which defines NET_IP_ALIGN to 0 because DMA to unaligned addresses can be very expensive and dwarf the cost of unaligned loads. It goes on to explain that some devices cannot DMA to unaligned addresses and I assume that for your driver that is everything which is not MTK_SOC_MT7628 ?
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:59 AM Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> wrote: > > Based on the code in mtk_probe, I am guessing that only > MTK_SOC_MT7628 can DMA to unaligned addresses, because for > everything else eth->ip_align would be 0. > > Is that right? > > I am asking because the documentation in > Documentation/core-api/unaligned-memory-access.rst refers to the > case you mention, NET_IP_ALIGN = 0, suggesting that this is > intentional for performance reasons on powerpc: > > One notable exception here is powerpc which defines NET_IP_ALIGN to > 0 because DMA to unaligned addresses can be very expensive and dwarf > the cost of unaligned loads. > > It goes on to explain that some devices cannot DMA to unaligned > addresses and I assume that for your driver that is everything which > is not MTK_SOC_MT7628 ? I have no explanation for this partial use of 'eth->ip_align', it could be a mistake or maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps Stefan Roese, who wrote this part, has an explanation. (adding Stefan to CC)
On 7/30/24 20:35, Elad Yifee wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:59 AM Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> wrote: >> >> Based on the code in mtk_probe, I am guessing that only >> MTK_SOC_MT7628 can DMA to unaligned addresses, because for >> everything else eth->ip_align would be 0. >> >> Is that right? >> >> I am asking because the documentation in >> Documentation/core-api/unaligned-memory-access.rst refers to the >> case you mention, NET_IP_ALIGN = 0, suggesting that this is >> intentional for performance reasons on powerpc: >> >> One notable exception here is powerpc which defines NET_IP_ALIGN to >> 0 because DMA to unaligned addresses can be very expensive and dwarf >> the cost of unaligned loads. >> >> It goes on to explain that some devices cannot DMA to unaligned >> addresses and I assume that for your driver that is everything which >> is not MTK_SOC_MT7628 ? > > I have no explanation for this partial use of 'eth->ip_align', it > could be a mistake > or maybe I'm missing something. > Perhaps Stefan Roese, who wrote this part, has an explanation. > (adding Stefan to CC) Sorry, I can't answer this w/o digging deeper into this driver and SoC again. And I didn't use it for a few years now. It might be a mistake. Thanks, Stefan
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:09:27AM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > On 7/30/24 20:35, Elad Yifee wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:59 AM Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> wrote: > > > > > > Based on the code in mtk_probe, I am guessing that only > > > MTK_SOC_MT7628 can DMA to unaligned addresses, because for > > > everything else eth->ip_align would be 0. > > > > > > Is that right? > > > > > > I am asking because the documentation in > > > Documentation/core-api/unaligned-memory-access.rst refers to the > > > case you mention, NET_IP_ALIGN = 0, suggesting that this is > > > intentional for performance reasons on powerpc: > > > > > > One notable exception here is powerpc which defines NET_IP_ALIGN to > > > 0 because DMA to unaligned addresses can be very expensive and dwarf > > > the cost of unaligned loads. > > > > > > It goes on to explain that some devices cannot DMA to unaligned > > > addresses and I assume that for your driver that is everything which > > > is not MTK_SOC_MT7628 ? > > > > I have no explanation for this partial use of 'eth->ip_align', it > > could be a mistake > > or maybe I'm missing something. > > Perhaps Stefan Roese, who wrote this part, has an explanation. > > (adding Stefan to CC) > > Sorry, I can't answer this w/o digging deeper into this driver and > SoC again. And I didn't use it for a few years now. It might be a > mistake. I asked about it because it was added in v2 of the patch, see the changelog from the patch: - use eth->ip_align instead of NET_IP_ALIGN as it could be 0, depending on the platform It seemed like from the changelog some one decided adding that made sense and I was just confirming the reasoning above.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c index 16ca427cf4c3..4d0052dbe3f4 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c @@ -1963,6 +1963,7 @@ static u32 mtk_xdp_run(struct mtk_eth *eth, struct mtk_rx_ring *ring, if (!prog) goto out; + net_prefetchw(xdp->data_hard_start); act = bpf_prog_run_xdp(prog, xdp); switch (act) { case XDP_PASS: @@ -2038,6 +2039,7 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, idx = NEXT_DESP_IDX(ring->calc_idx, ring->dma_size); rxd = ring->dma + idx * eth->soc->rx.desc_size; + prefetch(rxd); data = ring->data[idx]; if (!mtk_rx_get_desc(eth, &trxd, rxd)) @@ -2105,6 +2107,7 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, if (ret != XDP_PASS) goto skip_rx; + net_prefetch(xdp.data_meta); skb = build_skb(data, PAGE_SIZE); if (unlikely(!skb)) { page_pool_put_full_page(ring->page_pool, @@ -2113,6 +2116,7 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, goto skip_rx; } + net_prefetchw(skb->data); skb_reserve(skb, xdp.data - xdp.data_hard_start); skb_put(skb, xdp.data_end - xdp.data); skb_mark_for_recycle(skb); @@ -2143,6 +2147,7 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, dma_unmap_single(eth->dma_dev, ((u64)trxd.rxd1 | addr64), ring->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE); + net_prefetch(data + NET_SKB_PAD + eth->ip_align); skb = build_skb(data, ring->frag_size); if (unlikely(!skb)) { netdev->stats.rx_dropped++; @@ -2150,7 +2155,8 @@ static int mtk_poll_rx(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget, goto skip_rx; } - skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN); + net_prefetchw(skb->data); + skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD + eth->ip_align); skb_put(skb, pktlen); }
Utilize kernel prefetch methods for faster cache line access. This change boosts driver performance, allowing the CPU to handle about 5% more packets/sec. Signed-off-by: Elad Yifee <eladwf@gmail.com> --- Changes in v2: - use net_prefetchw as suggested by Joe Damato - add (NET_SKB_PAD + eth->ip_align) offset to prefetched data - use eth->ip_align instead of NET_IP_ALIGN as it could be 0, depending on the platform --- drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_eth_soc.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)