Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] xdp: add multi-buff support for xdp running in generic mode

[Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2942 bytes --]

> 
> 
> On 12/6/23 00:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 00:08:15 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > v00 (NS:ns0 - 192.168.0.1/24) <---> (NS:ns1 - 192.168.0.2/24) v01 ==(XDP_REDIRECT)==> v10 (NS:ns1 - 192.168.1.1/24) <---> (NS:ns2 - 192.168.1.2/24) v11
> > > 
> > > - v00: iperf3 client (pinned on core 0)
> > > - v11: iperf3 server (pinned on core 7)
> > > 
> > > net-next veth codebase (page_pool APIs):
> > > =======================================
> > > - MTU  1500: ~ 5.42 Gbps
> > > - MTU  8000: ~ 14.1 Gbps
> > > - MTU 64000: ~ 18.4 Gbps
> > > 
> > > net-next veth codebase + page_frag_cahe APIs [0]:
> > > =================================================
> > > - MTU  1500: ~ 6.62 Gbps
> > > - MTU  8000: ~ 14.7 Gbps
> > > - MTU 64000: ~ 19.7 Gbps
> > > 
> > > xdp_generic codebase + page_frag_cahe APIs (current proposed patch):
> > > ====================================================================
> > > - MTU  1500: ~ 6.41 Gbps
> > > - MTU  8000: ~ 14.2 Gbps
> > > - MTU 64000: ~ 19.8 Gbps
> > > 
> > > xdp_generic codebase + page_frag_cahe APIs [1]:
> > > ===============================================
> > 
> > This one should say page pool?

yep, sorry

> > 
> > > - MTU  1500: ~ 5.75 Gbps
> > > - MTU  8000: ~ 15.3 Gbps
> > > - MTU 64000: ~ 21.2 Gbps
> > > 
> > > It seems page_pool APIs are working better for xdp_generic codebase
> > > (except MTU 1500 case) while page_frag_cache APIs are better for
> > > veth driver. What do you think? Am I missing something?
> > 
> > IDK the details of veth XDP very well but IIUC they are pretty much
> > the same. Are there any clues in perf -C 0 / 7?
> > 
> > > [0] Here I have just used napi_alloc_frag() instead of
> > > page_pool_dev_alloc_va()/page_pool_dev_alloc() in
> > > veth_convert_skb_to_xdp_buff()
> > > 
> > > [1] I developed this PoC to use page_pool APIs for xdp_generic code:
> > 
> > Why not put the page pool in softnet_data?
> 
> First I thought cool that Jakub is suggesting softnet_data, which will
> make page_pool (PP) even more central as the netstacks memory layer.
> 
> BUT then I realized that PP have a weakness, which is the return/free
> path that need to take a normal spin_lock, as that can be called from
> any CPU (unlike the RX/alloc case).  Thus, I fear that making multiple
> devices share a page_pool via softnet_data, increase the chance of lock
> contention when packets are "freed" returned/recycled.

yep, afaik skb_attempt_defer_free() is used just by the tcp stack so far
(e.g. we will have contention for udp).

moreover it seems page_pool return path is not so optimized for the percpu
approach (we have a lot of atomic read/write operations and page_pool stats
are already implemented as percpu variables).

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> --Jesper
> 
> p.s. PP have the page_pool_put_page_bulk() API, but only XDP (NIC-drivers)
> leverage this.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]