Re: [PATCH net-next v7 3/3] selftests: add MSG_ZEROCOPY msg_control notification test

Re: [PATCH net-next v7 3/3] selftests: add MSG_ZEROCOPY msg_control notification test

[Simon Horman]

+ Dave Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Shuah Khan,
  linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 09:04:05PM +0000, zijianzhang@bytedance.com wrote:
> From: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@bytedance.com>
> 
> We update selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c to accommodate the new mechanism,
> cfg_notification_limit has the same semantics for both methods. Test
> results are as follows, we update skb_orphan_frags_rx to the same as
> skb_orphan_frags to support zerocopy in the localhost test.
> 
> cfg_notification_limit = 1, both method get notifications after 1 calling
> of sendmsg. In this case, the new method has around 17% cpu savings in TCP
> and 23% cpu savings in UDP.
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | Test Type / Protocol| TCP v4  | TCP v6  | UDP v4  | UDP v6  |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | ZCopy (MB)          | 7523    | 7706    | 7489    | 7304    |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | New ZCopy (MB)      | 8834    | 8993    | 9053    | 9228    |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | New ZCopy / ZCopy   | 117.42% | 116.70% | 120.88% | 126.34% |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> 
> cfg_notification_limit = 32, both get notifications after 32 calling of
> sendmsg, which means more chances to coalesce notifications, and less
> overhead of poll + recvmsg for the original method. In this case, the new
> method has around 7% cpu savings in TCP and slightly better cpu usage in
> UDP. In the context of selftest, notifications of TCP are more likely to
> out of order than UDP, it's easier to coalesce more notifications in UDP.
> The original method can get one notification with range of 32 in a recvmsg
> most of the time. In TCP, most notifications' range is around 2, so the
> original method needs around 16 recvmsgs to get notified in one round.
> That's the reason for the "New ZCopy / ZCopy" diff in TCP and UDP here.
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | Test Type / Protocol| TCP v4  | TCP v6  | UDP v4  | UDP v6  |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | ZCopy (MB)          | 8842    | 8735    | 10072   | 9380    |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | New ZCopy (MB)      | 9366    | 9477    | 10108   | 9385    |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> | New ZCopy / ZCopy   | 106.00% | 108.28% | 100.31% | 100.01% |
> +---------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
> 
> In conclusion, when notification interval is small or notifications are
> hard to be coalesced, the new mechanism is highly recommended. Otherwise,
> the performance gain from the new mechanism is very limited.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@bytedance.com>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaochun Lu <xiaochun.lu@bytedance.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c  | 111 ++++++++++++++++++--
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.sh |   1 +
>  2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c

...

> @@ -466,6 +504,44 @@ static void do_recv_completions(int fd, int domain)
>  	sends_since_notify = 0;
>  }
>  
> +static void do_recv_completions2(void)
> +{
> +	struct cmsghdr *cm = (struct cmsghdr *)zc_ckbuf;
> +	struct zc_info *zc_info;
> +	__u32 hi, lo, range;
> +	__u8 zerocopy;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	zc_info = (struct zc_info *)CMSG_DATA(cm);
> +	for (i = 0; i < zc_info->size; i++) {
> +		hi = zc_info->arr[i].hi;
> +		lo = zc_info->arr[i].lo;
> +		zerocopy = zc_info->arr[i].zerocopy;
> +		range = hi - lo + 1;
> +
> +		if (cfg_verbose && lo != next_completion)
> +			fprintf(stderr, "gap: %u..%u does not append to %u\n",
> +				lo, hi, next_completion);
> +		next_completion = hi + 1;
> +
> +		if (zerocopied == -1)
> +			zerocopied = zerocopy;
> +		else if (zerocopied != zerocopy) {
> +			fprintf(stderr, "serr: inconsistent\n");
> +			zerocopied = zerocopy;
> +		}

nit: If any arms of a conditional have {}, then all arms should have them

> +
> +		completions += range;
> +
> +		if (cfg_verbose >= 2)
> +			fprintf(stderr, "completed: %u (h=%u l=%u)\n",
> +				range, hi, lo);
> +	}
> +
> +	sends_since_notify = 0;
> +	added_zcopy_info = false;
> +}

...