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

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@redhat.com>]

On 05/07/2022 13.35, Guangbin Huang wrote:
> From: Jie Wang <wangjie125@huawei.com>
> 
> 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@huawei.com>

Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>

> ---
> 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;
>