Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:06:49 +0200 | From | Ilias Apalodimas <> | Subject | Re: [net-next v5 PATCH] page_pool: handle page recycle for NUMA_NO_NODE condition |
| |
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 04:22:54PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:49:37 +0200 > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:41:16AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:23:14 +0200 > > > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jesper, > > > > > > > > I like the overall approach since this moves the check out of the hotpath. > > > > @Saeed, since i got no hardware to test this on, would it be possible to check > > > > that it still works fine for mlx5? > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > + struct ptr_ring *r = &pool->ring; > > > > > + struct page *page; > > > > > + int pref_nid; /* preferred NUMA node */ > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Quicker fallback, avoid locks when ring is empty */ > > > > > + if (__ptr_ring_empty(r)) > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Softirq guarantee CPU and thus NUMA node is stable. This, > > > > > + * assumes CPU refilling driver RX-ring will also run RX-NAPI. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + pref_nid = (pool->p.nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? numa_mem_id() : pool->p.nid; > > > > > > > > One of the use cases for this is that during the allocation we are not > > > > guaranteed to pick up the correct NUMA node. > > > > This will get automatically fixed once the driver starts recycling packets. > > > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about this, since i don't usually like hiding value > > > > changes from the user but, would it make sense to move this into > > > > __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow() and change the pool->p.nid? > > > > > > > > Since alloc_pages_node() will replace NUMA_NO_NODE with numa_mem_id() > > > > regardless, why not store the actual node in our page pool information? > > > > You can then skip this and check pool->p.nid == numa_mem_id(), regardless of > > > > what's configured. > > > > > > This single code line helps support that drivers can control the nid > > > themselves. This is a feature that is only used my mlx5 AFAIK. > > > > > > I do think that is useful to allow the driver to "control" the nid, as > > > pinning/preferring the pages to come from the NUMA node that matches > > > the PCI-e controller hardware is installed in does have benefits. > > > > Sure you can keep the if statement as-is, it won't break anything. > > Would we want to store the actual numa id in pool->p.nid if the user > > selects 'NUMA_NO_NODE'? > > No. pool->p.nid should stay as NUMA_NO_NODE, because that makes it > dynamic. If someone moves an RX IRQ to another CPU on another NUMA > node, then this 'NUMA_NO_NODE' setting makes pages transitioned > automatically. Ok this assumed that drivers were going to use page_pool_nid_changed(), but with the current code we don't have to force them to do that. Let's keep this as-is.
I'll be running a few more tests and wait in case Saeed gets a chance to test it and send my reviewed-by
Cheers /Ilias > > -- > Best regards, > Jesper Dangaard Brouer > MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer >
| |