[RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Matteo Croce]

This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.

The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:

stock net-next with frag allocator:
rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps

this patchset with page_pool:
rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps

This is the perf top when receiving traffic:

  27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page
   9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist
   7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
   4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
   4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
   3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
   3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
   3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
   3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
   2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
   2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
   2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
   1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
   1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
   1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
   1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
   1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
   1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec

I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.

Any idea on why I get such bad numbers?

Another reason to send it as RFC is that I'm not fully convinced on how to
use the page_pool given the HW limitation of the BM.

The driver currently uses, for every CPU, a page_pool for short packets and
another for long ones. The driver also has 4 rx queue per port, so every
RXQ #1 will share the short and long page pools of CPU #1.

This means that for every RX queue I call xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() twice,
on two different page_pool, can this be a problem?

As usual, ideas are welcome.

Matteo Croce (2):
  mvpp2: use page_pool allocator
  mvpp2: memory accounting

 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig          |   1 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h    |   7 +
 .../net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c   | 142 +++++++++++++++---
 3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

-- 
2.24.1

[RFC net-next 1/2] mvpp2: use page_pool allocator

[Matteo Croce]

Use the page_pool API for memory management. This is a prerequisite for
native XDP support.

Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig          |   1 +
 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h    |   4 +
 .../net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c   | 111 ++++++++++++++----
 3 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig
index 3d5caea096fb..e2612cc4920d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ config MVPP2
 	depends on ARCH_MVEBU || COMPILE_TEST
 	select MVMDIO
 	select PHYLINK
+	select PAGE_POOL
 	---help---
 	  This driver supports the network interface units in the
 	  Marvell ARMADA 375, 7K and 8K SoCs.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
index 543a310ec102..67b3bf0d3c8b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 #include <linux/phy.h>
 #include <linux/phylink.h>
 #include <net/flow_offload.h>
+#include <net/page_pool.h>
 
 /* Fifo Registers */
 #define MVPP2_RX_DATA_FIFO_SIZE_REG(port)	(0x00 + 4 * (port))
@@ -820,6 +821,9 @@ struct mvpp2 {
 
 	/* RSS Indirection tables */
 	struct mvpp2_rss_table *rss_tables[MVPP22_N_RSS_TABLES];
+
+	/* page_pool allocator */
+	struct page_pool *page_pool[MVPP2_PORT_MAX_RXQ];
 };
 
 struct mvpp2_pcpu_stats {
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
index 14e372cda7f4..4edb81c8941f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
@@ -92,6 +92,21 @@ static inline u32 mvpp2_cpu_to_thread(struct mvpp2 *priv, int cpu)
 	return cpu % priv->nthreads;
 }
 
+static struct page_pool *
+mvpp2_create_page_pool(struct device *dev, int num)
+{
+	struct page_pool_params pp_params = {
+		/* internal DMA mapping in page_pool */
+		.flags = PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP,
+		.pool_size = num,
+		.nid = NUMA_NO_NODE,
+		.dev = dev,
+		.dma_dir = DMA_FROM_DEVICE,
+	};
+
+	return page_pool_create(&pp_params);
+}
+
 /* These accessors should be used to access:
  *
  * - per-thread registers, where each thread has its own copy of the
@@ -324,17 +339,26 @@ static inline int mvpp2_txq_phys(int port, int txq)
 	return (MVPP2_MAX_TCONT + port) * MVPP2_MAX_TXQ + txq;
 }
 
-static void *mvpp2_frag_alloc(const struct mvpp2_bm_pool *pool)
+/* Returns a struct page if page_pool is set, otherwise a buffer */
+static void *mvpp2_frag_alloc(const struct mvpp2_bm_pool *pool,
+			      struct page_pool *page_pool)
 {
+	if (page_pool)
+		return page_pool_alloc_pages(page_pool,
+					     GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
+
 	if (likely(pool->frag_size <= PAGE_SIZE))
 		return netdev_alloc_frag(pool->frag_size);
-	else
-		return kmalloc(pool->frag_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
+
+	return kmalloc(pool->frag_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
 }
 
-static void mvpp2_frag_free(const struct mvpp2_bm_pool *pool, void *data)
+static void mvpp2_frag_free(const struct mvpp2_bm_pool *pool,
+			    struct page_pool *page_pool, void *data)
 {
-	if (likely(pool->frag_size <= PAGE_SIZE))
+	if (page_pool)
+		page_pool_put_page(page_pool, virt_to_page(data), false);
+	else if (likely(pool->frag_size <= PAGE_SIZE))
 		skb_free_frag(data);
 	else
 		kfree(data);
@@ -439,6 +463,7 @@ static void mvpp2_bm_bufs_get_addrs(struct device *dev, struct mvpp2 *priv,
 static void mvpp2_bm_bufs_free(struct device *dev, struct mvpp2 *priv,
 			       struct mvpp2_bm_pool *bm_pool, int buf_num)
 {
+	struct page_pool *pp = NULL;
 	int i;
 
 	if (buf_num > bm_pool->buf_num) {
@@ -447,6 +472,9 @@ static void mvpp2_bm_bufs_free(struct device *dev, struct mvpp2 *priv,
 		buf_num = bm_pool->buf_num;
 	}
 
+	if (priv->percpu_pools)
+		pp = priv->page_pool[bm_pool->id];
+
 	for (i = 0; i < buf_num; i++) {
 		dma_addr_t buf_dma_addr;
 		phys_addr_t buf_phys_addr;
@@ -455,14 +483,15 @@ static void mvpp2_bm_bufs_free(struct device *dev, struct mvpp2 *priv,
 		mvpp2_bm_bufs_get_addrs(dev, priv, bm_pool,
 					&buf_dma_addr, &buf_phys_addr);
 
-		dma_unmap_single(dev, buf_dma_addr,
-				 bm_pool->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
+		if (!pp)
+			dma_unmap_single(dev, buf_dma_addr,
+					 bm_pool->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
 
 		data = (void *)phys_to_virt(buf_phys_addr);
 		if (!data)
 			break;
 
-		mvpp2_frag_free(bm_pool, data);
+		mvpp2_frag_free(bm_pool, pp, data);
 	}
 
 	/* Update BM driver with number of buffers removed from pool */
@@ -493,6 +522,9 @@ static int mvpp2_bm_pool_destroy(struct device *dev, struct mvpp2 *priv,
 	int buf_num;
 	u32 val;
 
+	if (priv->percpu_pools)
+		page_pool_destroy(priv->page_pool[bm_pool->id]);
+
 	buf_num = mvpp2_check_hw_buf_num(priv, bm_pool);
 	mvpp2_bm_bufs_free(dev, priv, bm_pool, buf_num);
 
@@ -545,8 +577,16 @@ static int mvpp2_bm_init(struct device *dev, struct mvpp2 *priv)
 {
 	int i, err, poolnum = MVPP2_BM_POOLS_NUM;
 
-	if (priv->percpu_pools)
+	if (priv->percpu_pools) {
 		poolnum = mvpp2_get_nrxqs(priv) * 2;
+		for (i = 0; i < poolnum; i++) {
+			priv->page_pool[i] =
+				mvpp2_create_page_pool(dev,
+						       mvpp2_pools[i / (poolnum / 2)].buf_num);
+			if (IS_ERR(priv->page_pool[i]))
+				return PTR_ERR(priv->page_pool[i]);
+		}
+	}
 
 	dev_info(dev, "using %d %s buffers\n", poolnum,
 		 priv->percpu_pools ? "per-cpu" : "shared");
@@ -629,23 +669,35 @@ static void mvpp2_rxq_short_pool_set(struct mvpp2_port *port,
 
 static void *mvpp2_buf_alloc(struct mvpp2_port *port,
 			     struct mvpp2_bm_pool *bm_pool,
+			     struct page_pool *page_pool,
 			     dma_addr_t *buf_dma_addr,
 			     phys_addr_t *buf_phys_addr,
 			     gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	dma_addr_t dma_addr;
+	struct page *page;
 	void *data;
 
-	data = mvpp2_frag_alloc(bm_pool);
+	data = mvpp2_frag_alloc(bm_pool, page_pool);
 	if (!data)
 		return NULL;
 
-	dma_addr = dma_map_single(port->dev->dev.parent, data,
-				  MVPP2_RX_BUF_SIZE(bm_pool->pkt_size),
-				  DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
-	if (unlikely(dma_mapping_error(port->dev->dev.parent, dma_addr))) {
-		mvpp2_frag_free(bm_pool, data);
-		return NULL;
+	if (page_pool) {
+		page = (struct page *)data;
+		dma_addr = page_pool_get_dma_addr(page);
+		data = page_to_virt(page);
+		dma_sync_single_for_device(port->dev->dev.parent,
+					   virt_to_phys(data),
+					   bm_pool->buf_size,
+					   DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
+	} else {
+		dma_addr = dma_map_single(port->dev->dev.parent, data,
+					  MVPP2_RX_BUF_SIZE(bm_pool->pkt_size),
+					  DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
+		if (unlikely(dma_mapping_error(port->dev->dev.parent, dma_addr))) {
+			mvpp2_frag_free(bm_pool, NULL, data);
+			return NULL;
+		}
 	}
 	*buf_dma_addr = dma_addr;
 	*buf_phys_addr = virt_to_phys(data);
@@ -703,6 +755,7 @@ static int mvpp2_bm_bufs_add(struct mvpp2_port *port,
 	int i, buf_size, total_size;
 	dma_addr_t dma_addr;
 	phys_addr_t phys_addr;
+	struct page_pool *pp = NULL;
 	void *buf;
 
 	if (port->priv->percpu_pools &&
@@ -723,8 +776,10 @@ static int mvpp2_bm_bufs_add(struct mvpp2_port *port,
 		return 0;
 	}
 
+	if (port->priv->percpu_pools)
+		pp = port->priv->page_pool[bm_pool->id];
 	for (i = 0; i < buf_num; i++) {
-		buf = mvpp2_buf_alloc(port, bm_pool, &dma_addr,
+		buf = mvpp2_buf_alloc(port, bm_pool, pp, &dma_addr,
 				      &phys_addr, GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!buf)
 			break;
@@ -2865,14 +2920,15 @@ static void mvpp2_rx_csum(struct mvpp2_port *port, u32 status,
 
 /* Allocate a new skb and add it to BM pool */
 static int mvpp2_rx_refill(struct mvpp2_port *port,
-			   struct mvpp2_bm_pool *bm_pool, int pool)
+			   struct mvpp2_bm_pool *bm_pool,
+			   struct page_pool *page_pool, int pool)
 {
 	dma_addr_t dma_addr;
 	phys_addr_t phys_addr;
 	void *buf;
 
-	buf = mvpp2_buf_alloc(port, bm_pool, &dma_addr, &phys_addr,
-			      GFP_ATOMIC);
+	buf = mvpp2_buf_alloc(port, bm_pool, page_pool,
+			      &dma_addr, &phys_addr, GFP_ATOMIC);
 	if (!buf)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -2931,6 +2987,7 @@ static int mvpp2_rx(struct mvpp2_port *port, struct napi_struct *napi,
 	while (rx_done < rx_todo) {
 		struct mvpp2_rx_desc *rx_desc = mvpp2_rxq_next_desc_get(rxq);
 		struct mvpp2_bm_pool *bm_pool;
+		struct page_pool *pp = NULL;
 		struct sk_buff *skb;
 		unsigned int frag_size;
 		dma_addr_t dma_addr;
@@ -2975,15 +3032,21 @@ static int mvpp2_rx(struct mvpp2_port *port, struct napi_struct *napi,
 			goto err_drop_frame;
 		}
 
-		err = mvpp2_rx_refill(port, bm_pool, pool);
+		if (port->priv->percpu_pools)
+			pp = port->priv->page_pool[pool];
+
+		err = mvpp2_rx_refill(port, bm_pool, pp, pool);
 		if (err) {
 			netdev_err(port->dev, "failed to refill BM pools\n");
 			goto err_drop_frame;
 		}
 
-		dma_unmap_single_attrs(dev->dev.parent, dma_addr,
-				       bm_pool->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE,
-				       DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC);
+		if (pp)
+			page_pool_release_page(pp, virt_to_page(data));
+		else
+			dma_unmap_single_attrs(dev->dev.parent, dma_addr,
+					       bm_pool->buf_size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE,
+					       DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC);
 
 		rcvd_pkts++;
 		rcvd_bytes += rx_bytes;
-- 
2.24.1

[RFC net-next 2/2] mvpp2: memory accounting

[Matteo Croce]

Use the XDP API for memory accounting.

Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h    |  3 ++
 .../net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c   | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
index 67b3bf0d3c8b..ffd633e0a3be 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
@@ -1165,6 +1165,9 @@ struct mvpp2_rx_queue {
 
 	/* Port's logic RXQ number to which physical RXQ is mapped */
 	int logic_rxq;
+
+	/* XDP memory accounting */
+	struct xdp_rxq_info xdp_rxq;
 };
 
 struct mvpp2_bm_pool {
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
index 4edb81c8941f..3b0aac66ac52 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
@@ -2405,10 +2405,11 @@ static int mvpp2_aggr_txq_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
 /* Create a specified Rx queue */
 static int mvpp2_rxq_init(struct mvpp2_port *port,
 			  struct mvpp2_rx_queue *rxq)
-
 {
+	struct mvpp2 *priv = port->priv;
 	unsigned int thread;
 	u32 rxq_dma;
+	int err;
 
 	rxq->size = port->rx_ring_size;
 
@@ -2446,7 +2447,35 @@ static int mvpp2_rxq_init(struct mvpp2_port *port,
 	/* Add number of descriptors ready for receiving packets */
 	mvpp2_rxq_status_update(port, rxq->id, 0, rxq->size);
 
+	err = xdp_rxq_info_reg(&rxq->xdp_rxq, port->dev, rxq->id);
+	if (err < 0)
+		goto err_free_dma;
+
+	if (priv->percpu_pools) {
+		/* Every RXQ has a pool for short and another for long packets */
+		err = xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model(&rxq->xdp_rxq,
+						 MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL,
+						 priv->page_pool[rxq->logic_rxq]);
+		if (err < 0)
+			goto err_unregister_rxq;
+
+		err = xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model(&rxq->xdp_rxq,
+						 MEM_TYPE_PAGE_POOL,
+						 priv->page_pool[rxq->logic_rxq +
+								 port->nrxqs]);
+		if (err < 0)
+			goto err_unregister_rxq;
+	}
+
 	return 0;
+
+err_unregister_rxq:
+	xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&rxq->xdp_rxq);
+err_free_dma:
+	dma_free_coherent(port->dev->dev.parent,
+			  rxq->size * MVPP2_DESC_ALIGNED_SIZE,
+			  rxq->descs, rxq->descs_dma);
+	return err;
 }
 
 /* Push packets received by the RXQ to BM pool */
-- 
2.24.1

Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:01:01AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
> the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
> 
> The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
> more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
> 
> stock net-next with frag allocator:
> rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
> 
> this patchset with page_pool:
> rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
> 
> This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
> 
>   27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page

This seems extremly high on the list. 

>    9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist
>    7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
>    4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
>    4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
>    3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
>    3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
>    3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
>    3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
>    2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
>    2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
>    2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
>    1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
>    1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
>    1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
>    1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
>    1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
>    1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec
> 
> I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
> to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.

Can you post the recycling perf for comparison?

> 
> Any idea on why I get such bad numbers?

Nop but it's indeed strange

> 
> Another reason to send it as RFC is that I'm not fully convinced on how to
> use the page_pool given the HW limitation of the BM.

I'll have a look right after holidays

> 
> The driver currently uses, for every CPU, a page_pool for short packets and
> another for long ones. The driver also has 4 rx queue per port, so every
> RXQ #1 will share the short and long page pools of CPU #1.
> 

I am not sure i am following the hardware config here

> This means that for every RX queue I call xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() twice,
> on two different page_pool, can this be a problem?
> 
> As usual, ideas are welcome.
> 
> Matteo Croce (2):
>   mvpp2: use page_pool allocator
>   mvpp2: memory accounting
> 
>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig          |   1 +
>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h    |   7 +
>  .../net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c   | 142 +++++++++++++++---
>  3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.24.1
> 
Cheers
/Ilias

Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Matteo Croce]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:01:01AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
> > the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
> >
> > The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
> > more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
> >
> > stock net-next with frag allocator:
> > rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
> >
> > this patchset with page_pool:
> > rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
> >
> > This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
> >
> >   27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page
>
> This seems extremly high on the list.
>
> >    9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist
> >    7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
> >    4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
> >    4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> >    3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
> >    3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
> >    3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
> >    3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> >    2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
> >    2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
> >    2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
> >    1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
> >    1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
> >    1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
> >    1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
> >    1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
> >    1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec
> >
> > I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
> > to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.
>
> Can you post the recycling perf for comparison?
>

  12.00%  [kernel]                  [k] get_page_from_freelist
   9.25%  [kernel]                  [k] free_unref_page
   6.83%  [kernel]                  [k] eth_type_trans
   5.33%  [kernel]                  [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
   4.96%  [mvpp2]                   [k] mvpp2_poll
   4.64%  [kernel]                  [k] kmem_cache_free
   4.06%  [kernel]                  [k] __xdp_return
   3.60%  [kernel]                  [k] kmem_cache_alloc
   3.31%  [kernel]                  [k] dev_gro_receive
   3.29%  [kernel]                  [k] __page_pool_clean_page
   3.25%  [mvpp2]                   [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
   2.73%  [kernel]                  [k] __page_pool_put_page
   2.33%  [kernel]                  [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
   2.33%  [kernel]                  [k] inet_gro_receive
   2.05%  [kernel]                  [k] __build_skb
   1.95%  [kernel]                  [k] build_skb
   1.89%  [cls_matchall]            [k] mall_classify
   1.83%  [kernel]                  [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
   1.80%  [kernel]                  [k] tcf_action_exec
   1.70%  [mvpp2]                   [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
   1.63%  [kernel]                  [k] free_unref_page_prepare.part.0
   1.45%  [kernel]                  [k] page_pool_return_skb_page
   1.42%  [act_gact]                [k] tcf_gact_act
   1.16%  [kernel]                  [k] netif_receive_skb_list_internal
   1.08%  [kernel]                  [k] kfree_skb
   1.07%  [kernel]                  [k] skb_release_data


> >
> > Any idea on why I get such bad numbers?
>
> Nop but it's indeed strange
>
> >
> > Another reason to send it as RFC is that I'm not fully convinced on how to
> > use the page_pool given the HW limitation of the BM.
>
> I'll have a look right after holidays
>

Thanks

> >
> > The driver currently uses, for every CPU, a page_pool for short packets and
> > another for long ones. The driver also has 4 rx queue per port, so every
> > RXQ #1 will share the short and long page pools of CPU #1.
> >
>
> I am not sure i am following the hardware config here
>

Never mind, it's quite a mess, I needed a lot of time to get it :)

The HW put the packets in different buffer pools depending on the size:
short: 64..128
long: 128..1664
jumbo: 1664..9856

Let's skip the jumbo buffer for now and assume we have 4 CPU, the
driver allocates 4 short and 4 long buffers.
Each port has 4 RX queues, and each one uses a short and a long buffer.
With the page_pool api, we have 8 struct page_pool, 4 for the short
and 4 for the long buffers.


> > This means that for every RX queue I call xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() twice,
> > on two different page_pool, can this be a problem?
> >
> > As usual, ideas are welcome.
> >
> > Matteo Croce (2):
> >   mvpp2: use page_pool allocator
> >   mvpp2: memory accounting
> >
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/Kconfig          |   1 +
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h    |   7 +
> >  .../net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c   | 142 +++++++++++++++---
> >  3 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.24.1
> >
> Cheers
> /Ilias
>

Bye,
-- 
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream

Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:52:29 +0200
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:01:01AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
> > the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
> > 
> > The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
> > more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
> > 
> > stock net-next with frag allocator:
> > rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
> > 
> > this patchset with page_pool:
> > rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
> > 
> > This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
> > 
> >   27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page  
> 
> This seems extremly high on the list. 
 
This looks related to the cost of dma unmap, as page_pool have
PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP. (It is a little strange, as page_pool have flag
DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC, which should make it less expensive).


> >    9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist

You are clearly hitting page-allocator every time, because you are not
using page_pool recycle facility.


> >    7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
> >    4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
> >    4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> >    3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
> >    3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
> >    3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
> >    3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> >    2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
> >    2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
> >    2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
> >    1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
> >    1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
> >    1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
> >    1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
> >    1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
> >    1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec
> > 
> > I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
> > to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.  
-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 14:34:07 +0100
Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:01:01AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:  
> > > This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
> > > the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
> > >
> > > The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
> > > more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
> > >
> > > stock net-next with frag allocator:
> > > rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
> > >
> > > this patchset with page_pool:
> > > rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
> > >
> > > This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
> > >
> > >   27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page  
> >
> > This seems extremly high on the list.
> >  
> > >    9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist
> > >    7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
> > >    4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
> > >    4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> > >    3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
> > >    3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
> > >    3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
> > >    3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> > >    2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
> > >    2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
> > >    2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
> > >    1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
> > >    1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
> > >    1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
> > >    1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
> > >    1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
> > >    1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec
> > >
> > > I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
> > > to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.  
> >
> > Can you post the recycling perf for comparison?
> >  
> 
>   12.00%  [kernel]                  [k] get_page_from_freelist
>    9.25%  [kernel]                  [k] free_unref_page

Hmm, this indicate pages are not getting recycled.

>    6.83%  [kernel]                  [k] eth_type_trans
>    5.33%  [kernel]                  [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
>    4.96%  [mvpp2]                   [k] mvpp2_poll
>    4.64%  [kernel]                  [k] kmem_cache_free
>    4.06%  [kernel]                  [k] __xdp_return

You do invoke __xdp_return() code, but it might find that the page
cannot be recycled...

>    3.60%  [kernel]                  [k] kmem_cache_alloc
>    3.31%  [kernel]                  [k] dev_gro_receive
>    3.29%  [kernel]                  [k] __page_pool_clean_page
>    3.25%  [mvpp2]                   [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
>    2.73%  [kernel]                  [k] __page_pool_put_page
>    2.33%  [kernel]                  [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
>    2.33%  [kernel]                  [k] inet_gro_receive
>    2.05%  [kernel]                  [k] __build_skb
>    1.95%  [kernel]                  [k] build_skb
>    1.89%  [cls_matchall]            [k] mall_classify
>    1.83%  [kernel]                  [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
>    1.80%  [kernel]                  [k] tcf_action_exec
>    1.70%  [mvpp2]                   [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
>    1.63%  [kernel]                  [k] free_unref_page_prepare.part.0
>    1.45%  [kernel]                  [k] page_pool_return_skb_page
>    1.42%  [act_gact]                [k] tcf_gact_act
>    1.16%  [kernel]                  [k] netif_receive_skb_list_internal
>    1.08%  [kernel]                  [k] kfree_skb
>    1.07%  [kernel]                  [k] skb_release_data

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Matteo Croce]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 3:01 PM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<brouer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:52:29 +0200
> Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:01:01AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
> > > the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
> > >
> > > The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
> > > more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
> > >
> > > stock net-next with frag allocator:
> > > rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
> > >
> > > this patchset with page_pool:
> > > rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
> > >
> > > This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
> > >
> > >   27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page
> >
> > This seems extremly high on the list.
>
> This looks related to the cost of dma unmap, as page_pool have
> PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP. (It is a little strange, as page_pool have flag
> DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC, which should make it less expensive).
>
>
> > >    9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist
>
> You are clearly hitting page-allocator every time, because you are not
> using page_pool recycle facility.
>
>
> > >    7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
> > >    4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
> > >    4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> > >    3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
> > >    3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
> > >    3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
> > >    3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> > >    2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
> > >    2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
> > >    2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
> > >    1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
> > >    1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
> > >    1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
> > >    1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
> > >    1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
> > >    1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec
> > >
> > > I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
> > > to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.
> --
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
>

The change I did to use the recycling is the following:

--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
@@ -3071,7 +3071,7 @@ static int mvpp2_rx(struct mvpp2_port *port,
struct napi_struct *napi,
    if (pp)
-       page_pool_release_page(pp, virt_to_page(data));
+      skb_mark_for_recycle(skb, virt_to_page(data), &rxq->xdp_rxq.mem);
    else
         dma_unmap_single_attrs(dev->dev.parent, dma_addr,




--
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream

Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] mvpp2: page_pool support

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 03:37:49PM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 3:01 PM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> <brouer@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:52:29 +0200
> > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 02:01:01AM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > > This patches change the memory allocator of mvpp2 from the frag allocator to
> > > > the page_pool API. This change is needed to add later XDP support to mvpp2.
> > > >
> > > > The reason I send it as RFC is that with this changeset, mvpp2 performs much
> > > > more slower. This is the tc drop rate measured with a single flow:
> > > >
> > > > stock net-next with frag allocator:
> > > > rx: 900.7 Mbps 1877 Kpps
> > > >
> > > > this patchset with page_pool:
> > > > rx: 423.5 Mbps 882.3 Kpps
> > > >
> > > > This is the perf top when receiving traffic:
> > > >
> > > >   27.68%  [kernel]            [k] __page_pool_clean_page
> > >
> > > This seems extremly high on the list.
> >
> > This looks related to the cost of dma unmap, as page_pool have
> > PP_FLAG_DMA_MAP. (It is a little strange, as page_pool have flag
> > DMA_ATTR_SKIP_CPU_SYNC, which should make it less expensive).
> >
> >
> > > >    9.79%  [kernel]            [k] get_page_from_freelist
> >
> > You are clearly hitting page-allocator every time, because you are not
> > using page_pool recycle facility.
> >
> >
> > > >    7.18%  [kernel]            [k] free_unref_page
> > > >    4.64%  [kernel]            [k] build_skb
> > > >    4.63%  [kernel]            [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> > > >    3.83%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_poll
> > > >    3.64%  [kernel]            [k] eth_type_trans
> > > >    3.61%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_free
> > > >    3.03%  [kernel]            [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> > > >    2.76%  [kernel]            [k] dev_gro_receive
> > > >    2.69%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_bm_pool_put
> > > >    2.68%  [kernel]            [k] page_frag_free
> > > >    1.83%  [kernel]            [k] inet_gro_receive
> > > >    1.74%  [kernel]            [k] page_pool_alloc_pages
> > > >    1.70%  [kernel]            [k] __build_skb
> > > >    1.47%  [kernel]            [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
> > > >    1.36%  [mvpp2]             [k] mvpp2_buf_alloc.isra.0
> > > >    1.29%  [kernel]            [k] tcf_action_exec
> > > >
> > > > I tried Ilias patches for page_pool recycling, I get an improvement
> > > > to ~1100, but I'm still far than the original allocator.
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> >   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
> >   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
> >
> 
> The change I did to use the recycling is the following:
> 
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c
> @@ -3071,7 +3071,7 @@ static int mvpp2_rx(struct mvpp2_port *port,
> struct napi_struct *napi,
>     if (pp)
> -       page_pool_release_page(pp, virt_to_page(data));
> +      skb_mark_for_recycle(skb, virt_to_page(data), &rxq->xdp_rxq.mem);
>     else
>          dma_unmap_single_attrs(dev->dev.parent, dma_addr,
> 
> 
Jesper is rightm you aren't recycling anything.

The mark skb_mark_for_recycle() usage seems correct. 
There are a few more places that we refuse to recycle (for example coalescing
page pool and slub allocated pages is forbidden). I wonder if you hit any of
those cases and recycling doesn't take place. 
We'll hopefully release updated code shortly. I'll ping you and we can test on
that


Thanks
/Ilias
> 
> 
> --
> Matteo Croce
> per aspera ad upstream
>