Re: [PATCH] net: skip RPS if packet is already on target CPU

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 9:38 PM Caleb Sander [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:02 PM Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 7:27 PM Caleb Sander Mateos
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

If RPS is enabled, all packets with a CPU flow hint are enqueued to the
target CPU's input_pkt_queue and process_backlog() is scheduled on that
CPU to dequeue and process the packets. If ARFS has already steered the
packets to the correct CPU, this additional queuing is unnecessary and
the spinlocks involved incur significant CPU overhead.

In netif_receive_skb_internal() and netif_receive_skb_list_internal(),
check if the CPU flow hint get_rps_cpu() returns is the current CPU. If
so, bypass input_pkt_queue and immediately process the packet(s) on the
current CPU.

Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <redacted>

Current implementation was a conscious choice. This has been discussed
several times.

By processing packets inline, you are actually increasing latencies of
packets queued to other cpus.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of these prior discussions. I take it you are
referring to threads like
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230322072142.32751-1-xu.xin16@zte.com.cn/T/ (local)
? I see what you mean about the latency penalty for packets that do
require cross-CPU steering.

Do you have an alternate suggestion for how to avoid the overhead of
acquiring a spinlock for every packet? The atomic instruction in
rps_lock_irq_disable() called from process_backlog() is consuming 5%
of our CPU time. For our use case, we don't really want software RPS;
we are expecting ARFS to steer all high-bandwidth traffic to the
desired CPUs. We would happily turn off software RPS entirely if we
could, which seems like it would avoid the concerns about higher
latency for packets that need to be steering to a different CPU. But
my understanding is that using ARFS requires RPS to be enabled
(rps_sock_flow_entries set globally and rps_flow_cnt set on each
queue), which enables these rps_needed static branches. Is that
correct? If so, would you be open to adding a sysctl that disables
software RPS and relies upon ARFS to do the packet steering?

A sysctl will not avoid the fundamental issue.
Why not instead address the past feedback ?
Can you test the following ?

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index c682173a76424d7dadcc8374aa5b11dff44a4b46..7a5a7f1a4b7c3cbd105ecfc076377f25929729eb

100644

--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c

@@ -5842,6 +5842,21 @@ static int generic_xdp_install(struct

net_device *dev, struct netdev_bpf *xdp)
        return ret;
 }

+#ifdef CONFIG_RPS
+static bool net_must_use_backlog(int tcpu)
+{
+       if (tcpu < 0)
+               return false;
+       if (tcpu != smp_processor_id())
+               return true;
+       /* target cpu is ourself. We must use our backlog
+        * if we have deferred IPI or packets.
+        */
+       return this_cpu_read(softnet_data.rps_ipi_list) != NULL ||
+              this_cpu_read(softnet_data.input_pkt_queue.qlen) != 0;
+}
+#endif