Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/6] page_pool: a couple of assorted optimizations | From | Alexander H Duyck <> | Date | Mon, 07 Aug 2023 07:53:06 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 20:05 +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > That initially was a spin-off of the IAVF PP series[0], but has grown > (and shrunk) since then a bunch. In fact, it consists of three > semi-independent blocks: > > * #1-2: Compile-time optimization. Split page_pool.h into 2 headers to > not overbloat the consumers not needing complex inline helpers and > then stop including it in skbuff.h at all. The first patch is also > prereq for the whole series. > * #3: Improve cacheline locality for users of the Page Pool frag API. > * #4-6: Use direct cache recycling more aggressively, when it is safe > obviously. In addition, make sure nobody wants to use Page Pool API > with disabled interrupts. > > Patches #1 and #5 are authored by Yunsheng and Jakub respectively, with > small modifications from my side as per ML discussions. > For the perf numbers for #3-6, please see individual commit messages. > > Also available on my GH with many more Page Pool goodies[1]. > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230530150035.1943669-1-aleksander.lobakin@intel.com > [1] https://github.com/alobakin/linux/commits/iavf-pp-frag > > Alexander Lobakin (4): > net: skbuff: don't include <net/page_pool/types.h> to <linux/skbuff.h> > page_pool: place frag_* fields in one cacheline > net: skbuff: avoid accessing page_pool if !napi_safe when returning > page > net: skbuff: always try to recycle PP pages directly when in softirq > > Jakub Kicinski (1): > page_pool: add a lockdep check for recycling in hardirq > > Yunsheng Lin (1): > page_pool: split types and declarations from page_pool.h
So the series mostly looks good to me. My only concern would be with path 5 since I am not sure why we are just throwing a WARN_ON when we could just take action on the info to prevent the problem in the first place. That said the change doesn't hurt anything as-is so I would be good with us thinking about changing that as a follow-up.
Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>
| |