[PATCH 3/7] net/bonding: change mbuf pool and ring allocation

[Min Hu (Connor)]

Hi, Sanford,
	Thanks for your detailed description, some questions as follows.

在 2021/12/18 3:49, Sanford, Robert 写道:
> Hello Connor,
> 
> Thank you for the questions and comments. I will repeat the questions, followed by my answers.
> 
> Q: Could you be more detailed, why is mbuf pool caching not needed?
> 
> A: The short answer: under certain conditions, we can run out of
> buffers from that small, LACPDU-mempool. We actually saw this occur
> in production, on mostly-idle links.
> 
> For a long explanation, let's assume the following:
> 1. 1 tx-queue per bond and underlying ethdev ports.
> 2. 256 tx-descriptors (per ethdev port).
> 3. 257 mbufs in each port's LACPDU-pool, as computed by
> bond_mode_8023ad_activate_slave(), and cache-size 32.
> 4. The "app" xmits zero packets to this bond for a long time.
> 5. In EAL intr thread context, LACP tx_machine() allocates 1 mbuf
> (LACPDU) per second from the pool, and puts it into LACP tx-ring.
> 6. Every second, another thread, let's call it the tx-core, calls
> tx-burst (with zero packets to xmit), finds 1 mbuf on LACP tx-ring,
> and underlying ethdev PMD puts mbuf data into a tx-desc.
> 7. PMD tx-burst configured not to clean up used tx-descs until
> there are almost none free, e.g., less than pool's cache-size *
> CACHE_FLUSH_THRESH_MULTIPLIER (1.5).
> 8. When cleaning up tx-descs, we may leave up to 47 mbufs in the
> tx-core's LACPDU-pool cache (not accessible from intr thread).
> 
> When the number of used tx-descs (0..255) + number of mbufs in the
> cache (0..47) reaches 257, then allocation fails.
> 
> If I understand the LACP tx-burst code correctly, it would be
> worse if nb_tx_queues > 1, because (assuming multiple tx-cores)
> any queue/lcore could xmit an LACPDU. Thus, up to nb_tx_queues *
> 47 mbufs could be cached, and not accessible from tx_machine().
> 
> You would not see this problem if the app xmits other (non-LACP)
> mbufs on a regular basis, to expedite the clean-up of tx-descs
> including LACPDU mbufs (unless nb_tx_queues tx-core caches
> could hold all LACPDU mbufs).
> 
I think, we could not see this problem only because the mempool can
offer much more mbufs than cache size on no-LACP circumstance.

> If we make mempool's cache size 0, then allocation will not fail.
How about enlarge the size of mempool, i.e., up to 4096 ? I think
it can also avoid this bug.
> 
> A mempool cache for LACPDUs does not offer much additional speed:
> during alloc, the intr thread does not have default mempool caches
Why? as I know, all the core has its own default mempool caches ?
> (AFAIK); and the average time between frees is either 1 second (LACP
> short timeouts) or 10 seconds (long timeouts), i.e., infrequent.
> 
> --------
> 
> Q: Why reserve one additional slot in the rx and tx rings?
> 
> A: rte_ring_create() requires the ring size N, to be a power of 2,
> but it can only store N-1 items. Thus, if we want to store X items,
Hi, Robert, could you describe it for me?
I cannot understand why it
"only store N -1 items". I check the source code, It writes:
"The real usable ring size is *count-1* instead of *count* to
differentiate a free ring from an empty ring."
But I still can not get what it wrote.

> we need to ask for (at least) X+1. Original code fails when the real
> desired size is a power of 2, because in such a case, align32pow2
> does not round up.
> 
> For example, say we want a ring to hold 4:
> 
>      rte_ring_create(... rte_align32pow2(4) ...)
> 
> rte_align32pow2(4) returns 4, and we end up with a ring that only
> stores 3 items.
> 
>      rte_ring_create(... rte_align32pow2(4+1) ...)
> 
> rte_align32pow2(5) returns 8, and we end up with a ring that
> stores up to 7 items, more than we need, but acceptable.
To fix the bug, how about just setting the flags "RING_F_EXACT_SZ"

> 
> --------
> 
> Q: I found the comment for BOND_MODE_8023AX_SLAVE_RX_PKTS is
> wrong, could you fix it in this patch?
> 
> A: Yes, I will fix it in the next version of the patch.
Thanks.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Robert Sanford
> 
> 
> On 12/16/21, 4:01 AM, "Min Hu (Connor)" <humin29 at huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>      Hi, Robert,
> 
>      在 2021/12/16 2:19, Robert Sanford 写道:
>      > - Turn off mbuf pool caching to avoid mbufs lingering in pool caches.
>      >    At most, we transmit one LACPDU per second, per port.
>      Could you be more detailed, why does mbuf pool caching is not needed?
> 
>      > - Fix calculation of ring sizes, taking into account that a ring of
>      >    size N holds up to N-1 items.
>      Same to that, why should resvere another items ?
>      >
>      By the way, I found the comment for BOND_MODE_8023AX_SLAVE_RX_PKTS is
>      is wrong, could you fix it in this patch?
>      > Signed-off-by: Robert Sanford <rsanford at akamai.com>
>      > ---
>      >   drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c | 14 ++++++++------
>      >   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>      >
>      > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>      > index 43231bc..83d3938 100644
>      > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>      > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>      > @@ -1101,9 +1101,7 @@ bond_mode_8023ad_activate_slave(struct rte_eth_dev *bond_dev,
>      >   	}
>      >
>      >   	snprintf(mem_name, RTE_DIM(mem_name), "slave_port%u_pool", slave_id);
>      > -	port->mbuf_pool = rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(mem_name, total_tx_desc,
>      > -		RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE >= 32 ?
>      > -			32 : RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE,
>      > +	port->mbuf_pool = rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(mem_name, total_tx_desc, 0,
>      >   		0, element_size, socket_id);
>      >
>      >   	/* Any memory allocation failure in initialization is critical because
>      > @@ -1113,19 +1111,23 @@ bond_mode_8023ad_activate_slave(struct rte_eth_dev *bond_dev,
>      >   			slave_id, mem_name, rte_strerror(rte_errno));
>      >   	}
>      >
>      > +	/* Add one extra because ring reserves one. */
>      >   	snprintf(mem_name, RTE_DIM(mem_name), "slave_%u_rx", slave_id);
>      >   	port->rx_ring = rte_ring_create(mem_name,
>      > -			rte_align32pow2(BOND_MODE_8023AX_SLAVE_RX_PKTS), socket_id, 0);
>      > +			rte_align32pow2(BOND_MODE_8023AX_SLAVE_RX_PKTS + 1),
>      > +			socket_id, 0);
>      >
>      >   	if (port->rx_ring == NULL) {
>      >   		rte_panic("Slave %u: Failed to create rx ring '%s': %s\n", slave_id,
>      >   			mem_name, rte_strerror(rte_errno));
>      >   	}
>      >
>      > -	/* TX ring is at least one pkt longer to make room for marker packet. */
>      > +	/* TX ring is at least one pkt longer to make room for marker packet.
>      > +	 * Add one extra because ring reserves one. */
>      >   	snprintf(mem_name, RTE_DIM(mem_name), "slave_%u_tx", slave_id);
>      >   	port->tx_ring = rte_ring_create(mem_name,
>      > -			rte_align32pow2(BOND_MODE_8023AX_SLAVE_TX_PKTS + 1), socket_id, 0);
>      > +			rte_align32pow2(BOND_MODE_8023AX_SLAVE_TX_PKTS + 2),
>      > +			socket_id, 0);
>      >
>      >   	if (port->tx_ring == NULL) {
>      >   		rte_panic("Slave %u: Failed to create tx ring '%s': %s\n", slave_id,
>      >
>