mbox series

[net-next,v3,0/5] remove page frag implementation in vhost_net

Message ID 20240123104250.9103-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series remove page frag implementation in vhost_net | expand

Message

Yunsheng Lin Jan. 23, 2024, 10:42 a.m. UTC
Currently there are three implementations for page frag:

1. mm/page_alloc.c: net stack seems to be using it in the
   rx part with 'struct page_frag_cache' and the main API
   being page_frag_alloc_align().
2. net/core/sock.c: net stack seems to be using it in the
   tx part with 'struct page_frag' and the main API being
   skb_page_frag_refill().
3. drivers/vhost/net.c: vhost seems to be using it to build
   xdp frame, and it's implementation seems to be a mix of
   the above two.

This patchset tries to unfiy the page frag implementation a
little bit by unifying gfp bit for order 3 page allocation
and replacing page frag implementation in vhost.c with the
one in page_alloc.c.

After this patchset, we are not only able to unify the page
frag implementation a little, but also able to have about
0.5% performance boost testing by using the vhost_net_test
introduced in the last patch.

Before this patchset:
Performance counter stats for './vhost_net_test' (10 runs):

     305325.78 msec task-clock                       #    1.738 CPUs utilized               ( +-  0.12% )
       1048668      context-switches                 #    3.435 K/sec                       ( +-  0.00% )
            11      cpu-migrations                   #    0.036 /sec                        ( +- 17.64% )
            33      page-faults                      #    0.108 /sec                        ( +-  0.49% )
  244651819491      cycles                           #    0.801 GHz                         ( +-  0.43% )  (64)
   64714638024      stalled-cycles-frontend          #   26.45% frontend cycles idle        ( +-  2.19% )  (67)
   30774313491      stalled-cycles-backend           #   12.58% backend cycles idle         ( +-  7.68% )  (70)
  201749748680      instructions                     #    0.82  insn per cycle
                                              #    0.32  stalled cycles per insn     ( +-  0.41% )  (66.76%)
   65494787909      branches                         #  214.508 M/sec                       ( +-  0.35% )  (64)
    4284111313      branch-misses                    #    6.54% of all branches             ( +-  0.45% )  (66)

       175.699 +- 0.189 seconds time elapsed  ( +-  0.11% )


After this patchset:
Performance counter stats for './vhost_net_test' (10 runs):

     303974.38 msec task-clock                       #    1.739 CPUs utilized               ( +-  0.14% )
       1048807      context-switches                 #    3.450 K/sec                       ( +-  0.00% )
            14      cpu-migrations                   #    0.046 /sec                        ( +- 12.86% )
            33      page-faults                      #    0.109 /sec                        ( +-  0.46% )
  251289376347      cycles                           #    0.827 GHz                         ( +-  0.32% )  (60)
   67885175415      stalled-cycles-frontend          #   27.01% frontend cycles idle        ( +-  0.48% )  (63)
   27809282600      stalled-cycles-backend           #   11.07% backend cycles idle         ( +-  0.36% )  (71)
  195543234672      instructions                     #    0.78  insn per cycle
                                              #    0.35  stalled cycles per insn     ( +-  0.29% )  (69.04%)
   62423183552      branches                         #  205.357 M/sec                       ( +-  0.48% )  (67)
    4135666632      branch-misses                    #    6.63% of all branches             ( +-  0.63% )  (67)

       174.764 +- 0.214 seconds time elapsed  ( +-  0.12% )

Changelog:
V3:
1. Add __page_frag_alloc_align() which is passed with the align mask
   the original function expected as suggested by Alexander.
2. Drop patch 3 in v2 suggested by Alexander.
3. Reorder patch 4 & 5 in v2 suggested by Alexander.

Note that placing this gfp flags handing for order 3 page in an inline
function is not considered, as we may be able to unify the page_frag
and page_frag_cache handling.

V2: Change 'xor'd' to 'masked off', add vhost tx testing for
    vhost_net_test.

V1: Fix some typo, drop RFC tag and rebase on latest net-next.


Yunsheng Lin (5):
  mm/page_alloc: modify page_frag_alloc_align() to accept align as an
    argument
  page_frag: unify gfp bits for order 3 page allocation
  net: introduce page_frag_cache_drain()
  vhost/net: remove vhost_net_page_frag_refill()
  tools: virtio: introduce vhost_net_test

 drivers/net/ethernet/google/gve/gve_main.c |  11 +-
 drivers/net/ethernet/mediatek/mtk_wed_wo.c |  17 +-
 drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c                    |   7 +-
 drivers/nvme/target/tcp.c                  |   4 +-
 drivers/vhost/net.c                        |  91 +---
 include/linux/gfp.h                        |  16 +-
 mm/page_alloc.c                            |  22 +-
 net/core/skbuff.c                          |   6 +-
 net/core/sock.c                            |   2 +-
 tools/virtio/.gitignore                    |   1 +
 tools/virtio/Makefile                      |   8 +-
 tools/virtio/vhost_net_test.c              | 576 +++++++++++++++++++++
 12 files changed, 647 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/virtio/vhost_net_test.c

Comments

Yunsheng Lin Jan. 29, 2024, 12:40 p.m. UTC | #1
+cc Micheal and Jason

On 2024/1/23 18:42, Yunsheng Lin wrote:

Hi, Micheal and Jason

Is this patchset supposed to go through vhost tree instead of net-next?
As the state is changed to 'Not applicable' in the netdevbpf patchwork,
according to maintainer-netdev.rst:

Not applicable     patch is expected to be applied outside of the networking
                   subsystem

>
Jakub Kicinski Jan. 30, 2024, 2:08 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:40:37 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> Is this patchset supposed to go through vhost tree instead of net-next?
> As the state is changed to 'Not applicable' in the netdevbpf patchwork,
> according to maintainer-netdev.rst:
> 
> Not applicable     patch is expected to be applied outside of the networking
>                    subsystem

Sorry about the confusion, DaveM changed the way he uses the states
since they were documented. There were concurrent changes to the gve
driver, patches no longer apply. Could you rebase?
Yunsheng Lin Jan. 30, 2024, 10:38 a.m. UTC | #3
On 2024/1/30 10:08, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:40:37 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> Is this patchset supposed to go through vhost tree instead of net-next?
>> As the state is changed to 'Not applicable' in the netdevbpf patchwork,
>> according to maintainer-netdev.rst:
>>
>> Not applicable     patch is expected to be applied outside of the networking
>>                    subsystem
> 
> Sorry about the confusion, DaveM changed the way he uses the states
> since they were documented. There were concurrent changes to the gve
> driver, patches no longer apply. Could you rebase?

Sure.
Thanks for clarifying.

> .
>