From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932883AbdDQHfU (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:35:20 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:55976 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932413AbdDQHfQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2017 03:35:16 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 533A560DE0 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kimran@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: Increase the max granular size" To: "Chalamarla, Tirumalesh" , Ganesh Mahendran , Catalin Marinas Cc: "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" , open list , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" References: <1458120743-12145-1-git-send-email-opensource.ganesh@gmail.com> <20160321171403.GE25466@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <10fef112-37f1-0a1b-b5af-435acd032f01@codeaurora.org> <4525901c-45d4-6bd8-eec6-ae92977f16d1@codeaurora.org> <20170406155825.GA7705@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <08fa98de-760b-15bc-5220-fa449b08c118@codeaurora.org> <725F073F-025B-48B9-9935-24EFEBF2B7DC@caviumnetworks.com> From: Imran Khan Message-ID: <93d2819a-95b1-6606-74d4-0bc0a64db29e@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:05:09 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <725F073F-025B-48B9-9935-24EFEBF2B7DC@caviumnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/12/2017 7:30 PM, Chalamarla, Tirumalesh wrote: > > > On 4/11/17, 10:13 PM, "linux-arm-kernel on behalf of Imran Khan" wrote: > > On 4/7/2017 7:36 AM, Ganesh Mahendran wrote: > > 2017-04-06 23:58 GMT+08:00 Catalin Marinas : > >> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:52:13PM +0530, Imran Khan wrote: > >>> On 4/5/2017 10:13 AM, Imran Khan wrote: > >>>>> We may have to revisit this logic and consider L1_CACHE_BYTES the > >>>>> _minimum_ of cache line sizes in arm64 systems supported by the kernel. > >>>>> Do you have any benchmarks on Cavium boards that would show significant > >>>>> degradation with 64-byte L1_CACHE_BYTES vs 128? > >>>>> > >>>>> For non-coherent DMA, the simplest is to make ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN the > >>>>> _maximum_ of the supported systems: > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h > >>>>> index 5082b30bc2c0..4b5d7b27edaf 100644 > >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h > >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h > >>>>> @@ -18,17 +18,17 @@ > >>>>> > >>>>> #include > >>>>> > >>>>> -#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7 > >>>>> +#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 6 > >>>>> #define L1_CACHE_BYTES (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT) > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> * Memory returned by kmalloc() may be used for DMA, so we must make > >>>>> - * sure that all such allocations are cache aligned. Otherwise, > >>>>> - * unrelated code may cause parts of the buffer to be read into the > >>>>> - * cache before the transfer is done, causing old data to be seen by > >>>>> - * the CPU. > >>>>> + * sure that all such allocations are aligned to the maximum *known* > >>>>> + * cache line size on ARMv8 systems. Otherwise, unrelated code may cause > >>>>> + * parts of the buffer to be read into the cache before the transfer is > >>>>> + * done, causing old data to be seen by the CPU. > >>>>> */ > >>>>> -#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN L1_CACHE_BYTES > >>>>> +#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN (128) > >>>>> > >>>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > >>>>> index 392c67eb9fa6..30bafca1aebf 100644 > >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > >>>>> @@ -976,9 +976,9 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void) > >>>>> if (!cwg) > >>>>> pr_warn("No Cache Writeback Granule information, assuming > >>>>> cache line size %d\n", > >>>>> cls); > >>>>> - if (L1_CACHE_BYTES < cls) > >>>>> - pr_warn("L1_CACHE_BYTES smaller than the Cache Writeback Granule (%d < %d)\n", > >>>>> - L1_CACHE_BYTES, cls); > >>>>> + if (ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN < cls) > >>>>> + pr_warn("ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN smaller than the Cache Writeback Granule (%d < %d)\n", > >>>>> + ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN, cls); > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> static bool __maybe_unused > >>>> > >>>> This change was discussed at: [1] but was not concluded as apparently no one > >>>> came back with test report and numbers. After including this change in our > >>>> local kernel we are seeing significant throughput improvement. For example with: > >>>> > >>>> iperf -c 192.168.1.181 -i 1 -w 128K -t 60 > >>>> > >>>> The average throughput is improving by about 30% (230Mbps from 180Mbps). > >>>> Could you please let us know if this change can be included in upstream kernel. > >>>> > >>>> [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/P40yDB90ePs > >>> > >>> Could you please provide some feedback about the above mentioned query ? > >> > >> Do you have an explanation on the performance variation when > >> L1_CACHE_BYTES is changed? We'd need to understand how the network stack > >> is affected by L1_CACHE_BYTES, in which context it uses it (is it for > >> non-coherent DMA?). > > > > network stack use SKB_DATA_ALIGN to align. > > --- > > #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X) (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \ > > ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) > > > > #define SMP_CACHE_BYTES L1_CACHE_BYTES > > --- > > I think this is the reason of performance regression. > > > > Yes this is the reason for performance regression. Due to increases L1 cache alignment the > object is coming from next kmalloc slab and skb->truesize is changing from 2304 bytes to > 4352 bytes. This in turn increases sk_wmem_alloc which causes queuing of less send buffers. > > We tried different benchmarks and found none which really affects with Cache line change. If there is no correctness issue, > I think we are fine with reverting the patch. > So, can we revert the patch that makes L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7 or should the patch suggested by Catalin should be mainlined. We have verified the throughput degradation on 3.18 and 4.4 but I am afraid that this issue will be seen on other kernels too. > Though I still think it is beneficiary to do some more investigation for the perf loss, who knows 32 bit align or no align might > Give even more perf benefit. > Which perf loss you are referring to here. Did you mean throughput loss here or some other perf benchmarking ? Thanks, Imran > > Thanks, > Tirumalesh. > >> > >> The Cavium guys haven't shown any numbers (IIUC) to back the > >> L1_CACHE_BYTES performance improvement but I would not revert the > >> original commit since ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN definitely needs to cover the > >> maximum available cache line size, which is 128 for them. > > > > how about define L1_CACHE_SHIFT like below: > > --- > > #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_L1_CACHE_SHIFT > > #define L1_CACHE_SHIFT CONFIG_ARM64_L1_CACHE_SHIFT > > #else > > #define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 7 > > endif > > --- > > > > Thanks > > > >> > >> -- > >> Catalin > > > -- > QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a\nmember of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > > -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a\nmember of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation