Re: [RFC v2] net: use atomic allocation for order-3 page allocation

[Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 03:53:04PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 15:27 -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > We saw excessive direct memory compaction triggered by skb_page_frag_refill.
> > This causes performance issues and add latency. Commit 5640f7685831e0
> > introduces the order-3 allocation. According to the changelog, the order-3
> > allocation isn't a must-have but to improve performance. But direct memory
> > compaction has high overhead. The benefit of order-3 allocation can't
> > compensate the overhead of direct memory compaction.
> > 
> > This patch makes the order-3 page allocation atomic. If there is no memory
> > pressure and memory isn't fragmented, the alloction will still success, so we
> > don't sacrifice the order-3 benefit here. If the atomic allocation fails,
> > direct memory compaction will not be triggered, skb_page_frag_refill will
> > fallback to order-0 immediately, hence the direct memory compaction overhead is
> > avoided. In the allocation failure case, kswapd is waken up and doing
> > compaction, so chances are allocation could success next time.
> > 
> > The mellanox driver does similar thing, if this is accepted, we must fix
> > the driver too.
> > 
> > V2: make the changelog clearer
> > 
> > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/sock.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> > index 292f422..e9855a4 100644
> > --- a/net/core/sock.c
> > +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> > @@ -1883,7 +1883,7 @@ bool skb_page_frag_refill(unsigned int sz, struct page_frag *pfrag, gfp_t gfp)
> >  
> >  	pfrag->offset = 0;
> >  	if (SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER) {
> > -		pfrag->page = alloc_pages(gfp | __GFP_COMP |
> > +		pfrag->page = alloc_pages((gfp & ~__GFP_WAIT) | __GFP_COMP |
> >  					  __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY,
> >  					  SKB_FRAG_PAGE_ORDER);
> >  		if (likely(pfrag->page)) {
> 
> 
> OK, now what about alloc_skb_with_frags() ?
> 
> This should have same problem right ?

Ok, looks similar, added. Didn't trigger this one though.