Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC net-next v4 6/9] iavf: switch to Page Pool

From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>,
	Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
	Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>,
	Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Michal Kubiak <michal.kubiak@intel.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	David Christensen <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH RFC net-next v4 6/9] iavf: switch to Page Pool
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:47:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <558849ff-6b68-7547-cf99-36801ff24c25@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <95c5ba92-bccd-6a9a-5373-606a482e36a3@intel.com>

On 2023/7/10 21:34, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:16:39 +0800
> 
>> On 2023/7/7 0:38, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>  
>>>>
>>>>>  /**
>>>>> @@ -766,13 +742,19 @@ void iavf_free_rx_resources(struct iavf_ring *rx_ring)
>>>>>   **/
>>>>>  int iavf_setup_rx_descriptors(struct iavf_ring *rx_ring)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> -	struct device *dev = rx_ring->dev;
>>>>> -	int bi_size;
>>>>> +	struct page_pool *pool;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	pool = libie_rx_page_pool_create(&rx_ring->q_vector->napi,
>>>>> +					 rx_ring->count);
>>>>
>>>> If a page is able to be spilt between more than one desc, perhaps the
>>>> prt_ring size does not need to be as big as rx_ring->count.
>>>
>>> But we doesn't know in advance, right? Esp. given that it's hidden in
>>> the lib. But anyway, you can only assume that in regular cases if you
>>> always allocate frags of the same size, PP will split pages when 2+
>>> frags can fit there or return the whole page otherwise, but who knows
>>> what might happen.
>>
>> It seems intel driver is able to know the size of memory it needs when
>> creating the ring/queue/napi/pp, maybe the driver only tell the libie
>> how many descs does it use for queue, and libie can adjust it accordingly?
> 
> But libie can't say for sure how PP will split pages for it, right?
> 
>>
>>> BTW, with recent recycling optimization, most of recycling is done
>>> directly through cache, not ptr_ring. So I'd even say it's safe to start
>>> creating smaller ptr_rings in the drivers.
>>
>> The problem is that we may use more memory than before for certain case
>> if we don't limit the size of ptr_ring, unless we can ensure all of
>> recycling is done directly through cache, not ptr_ring.
> Also not sure I'm following =\

Before adding page pool support, the max memory used in the driver is as
below:
rx_ring->count * PAGE_SIZE;

After adding page pool support, the max memory used in the driver is as
below:

ptr_ring->size * PAGE_SIZE +
PP_ALLOC_CACHE_SIZE * PAGE_SIZE +
rx_ring->count * PAGE_SIZE / pp.init_arg

> 
> [...]
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek
> 
> .
> 
_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan