Re: order-0 vs order-N driver allocation. Was: [PATCH v10 07/12] net/mlx4_en: add page recycle to prepare rx ring for tx support

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:15:33AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 18:19 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> > I actually agree, that we should switch to order-0 allocations.
> > 
> > *BUT* this will cause performance regressions on platforms with
> > expensive DMA operations (as they no longer amortize the cost of
> > mapping a larger page).
> 
> 
> We much prefer reliable behavior, even it it is ~1 % slower than the
> super-optimized thing that opens highways for attackers.

+1
It's more important to have deterministic performance at fresh boot
and after long uptime when high order-N are gone.

> Anyway, in most cases pages are re-used, so we only call
> dma_sync_single_range_for_cpu(), and there is no way to avoid this.
> 
> Using order-0 pages [1] is actually faster, since when we use high-order
> pages (multiple frames per 'page') we can not reuse the pages.
> 
> [1] I had a local patch to allocate these pages using a very simple
> allocator allocating max order (order-10) pages and splitting them into
> order-0 ages, in order to lower TLB footprint. But I could not measure a
> gain doing so on x86, at least on my lab machines.

Which driver was that?
I suspect that should indeed be the case for any driver that
uses build_skb and <256 copybreak.

Saeed,
could you please share the performance numbers for mlx5 order-0 vs order-N ?
You mentioned that there was some performance improvement. We need to know
how much we'll lose when we turn off order-N.
Thanks!