From: Kangmin Park <hidden> Date: 2021-09-20 23:49:13
It is just introducing and proof of concept.
The patch code is based on other RFC patches. So, the code is not
correct yet, it is just simple proof of concept.
Recently block layer implemented percpu, lockless cache on the top
of slab allocator. It can be used for IO polling.
Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/868070/
Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-block/msg71964.html
It gained some IOPS increase (performance increased by about 10%
on the block layer).
And there are attempts to implement the percpu, lockless cache.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210920154816.31832-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com/T/#u
If this cache is implemented successfully,
how about use this cache to allocate skb instead of kmem_cache_alloc_bulk()
in napi_skb_cache_get()?
I want your comment/opinion.
Signed-off-by: Kangmin Park <redacted>
---
net/core/skbuff.c | 14 +++++++++-----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
@@ -170,11 +170,15 @@ static struct sk_buff *napi_skb_cache_get(void)structnapi_alloc_cache*nc=this_cpu_ptr(&napi_alloc_cache);structsk_buff*skb;-if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count))-nc->skb_count=kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(skbuff_head_cache,-GFP_ATOMIC,-NAPI_SKB_CACHE_BULK,-nc->skb_cache);+if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count)){+/* kmem_cache_alloc_cached should be changed to return the size of+*theallocatedcache+*/+nc->skb_cache=kmem_cache_alloc_cached(skbuff_head_cache,+GFP_ATOMIC|SLB_LOCKLESS_CACHE);+nc->skb_count=this_cpu_ptr(skbuff_head_cache)->size;+}+if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count))returnNULL;
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: 2021-09-20 20:52:33
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:47:13 +0900 Kangmin Park wrote:
It is just introducing and proof of concept.
The patch code is based on other RFC patches. So, the code is not
correct yet, it is just simple proof of concept.
Recently block layer implemented percpu, lockless cache on the top
of slab allocator. It can be used for IO polling.
Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/868070/
Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-block/msg71964.html
It gained some IOPS increase (performance increased by about 10%
on the block layer).
And there are attempts to implement the percpu, lockless cache.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210920154816.31832-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com/T/#u
If this cache is implemented successfully,
how about use this cache to allocate skb instead of kmem_cache_alloc_bulk()
in napi_skb_cache_get()?
I want your comment/opinion.
Please take a look at skb cache in struct napi_alloc_cache.
That should be your target here.
@@ -170,11 +170,15 @@ static struct sk_buff *napi_skb_cache_get(void)structnapi_alloc_cache*nc=this_cpu_ptr(&napi_alloc_cache);structsk_buff*skb;-if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count))-nc->skb_count=kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(skbuff_head_cache,-GFP_ATOMIC,-NAPI_SKB_CACHE_BULK,-nc->skb_cache);+if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count)){+/* kmem_cache_alloc_cached should be changed to return the size of+*theallocatedcache+*/+nc->skb_cache=kmem_cache_alloc_cached(skbuff_head_cache,+GFP_ATOMIC|SLB_LOCKLESS_CACHE);+nc->skb_count=this_cpu_ptr(skbuff_head_cache)->size;+}+if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count))returnNULL;
From: Kangmin Park <hidden> Date: 2021-09-21 02:54:25
2021년 9월 21일 (화) 오전 5:50, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref]님이 작성:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:47:13 +0900 Kangmin Park wrote:
quoted
It is just introducing and proof of concept.
The patch code is based on other RFC patches. So, the code is not
correct yet, it is just simple proof of concept.
Recently block layer implemented percpu, lockless cache on the top
of slab allocator. It can be used for IO polling.
Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/868070/
Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-block/msg71964.html
It gained some IOPS increase (performance increased by about 10%
on the block layer).
And there are attempts to implement the percpu, lockless cache.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210920154816.31832-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com/T/#u
If this cache is implemented successfully,
how about use this cache to allocate skb instead of kmem_cache_alloc_bulk()
in napi_skb_cache_get()?
I want your comment/opinion.
Please take a look at skb cache in struct napi_alloc_cache.
That should be your target here.
Oh, thanks for the advice.
I'll send you a v2 patch to replace/improve napi_alloc_cache
when progress is made in implementing the lockless cache.
Best Regards,
Kangmin Park
@@ -170,11 +170,15 @@ static struct sk_buff *napi_skb_cache_get(void)structnapi_alloc_cache*nc=this_cpu_ptr(&napi_alloc_cache);structsk_buff*skb;-if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count))-nc->skb_count=kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(skbuff_head_cache,-GFP_ATOMIC,-NAPI_SKB_CACHE_BULK,-nc->skb_cache);+if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count)){+/* kmem_cache_alloc_cached should be changed to return the size of+*theallocatedcache+*/+nc->skb_cache=kmem_cache_alloc_cached(skbuff_head_cache,+GFP_ATOMIC|SLB_LOCKLESS_CACHE);+nc->skb_count=this_cpu_ptr(skbuff_head_cache)->size;+}+if(unlikely(!nc->skb_count))returnNULL;