Re: [PATCH 4/4] RDMA/umem: batch page unpin in __ib_mem_release()

[John Hubbard]

On 2/3/21 2:00 PM, Joao Martins wrote:
> Use the newly added unpin_user_page_range_dirty_lock()
> for more quickly unpinning a consecutive range of pages
> represented as compound pages. This will also calculate
> number of pages to unpin (for the tail pages which matching
> head page) and thus batch the refcount update.
>
> Running a test program which calls mr reg/unreg on a 1G in size
> and measures cost of both operations together (in a guest using rxe)
> with THP and hugetlbfs:

In the patch subject line:

   s/__ib_mem_release/__ib_umem_release/

> Before:
> 590 rounds in 5.003 sec: 8480.335 usec / round
> 6898 rounds in 60.001 sec: 8698.367 usec / round
>
> After:
> 2631 rounds in 5.001 sec: 1900.618 usec / round
> 31625 rounds in 60.001 sec: 1897.267 usec / round
>
> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 12 ++++++------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> index 2dde99a9ba07..ea4ebb3261d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> @@ -47,17 +47,17 @@
>   
>   static void __ib_umem_release(struct ib_device *dev, struct ib_umem *umem, int dirty)
>   {
> -	struct sg_page_iter sg_iter;
> -	struct page *page;
> +	bool make_dirty = umem->writable && dirty;
> +	struct scatterlist *sg;
> +	int i;

Maybe unsigned int is better, so as to perfectly match the scatterlist.length.

>   
>   	if (umem->nmap > 0)
>   		ib_dma_unmap_sg(dev, umem->sg_head.sgl, umem->sg_nents,
>   				DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
>   
> -	for_each_sg_page(umem->sg_head.sgl, &sg_iter, umem->sg_nents, 0) {
> -		page = sg_page_iter_page(&sg_iter);
> -		unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(&page, 1, umem->writable && dirty);
> -	}
> +	for_each_sg(umem->sg_head.sgl, sg, umem->nmap, i)

The change from umem->sg_nents to umem->nmap looks OK, although we should get
IB people to verify that there is not some odd bug or reason to leave it as is.

> +		unpin_user_page_range_dirty_lock(sg_page(sg),
> +			DIV_ROUND_UP(sg->length, PAGE_SIZE), make_dirty);

Is it really OK to refer directly to sg->length? The scatterlist library goes
to some effort to avoid having callers directly access the struct member variables.

Actually, the for_each_sg() code and its behavior with sg->length and sg_page(sg)
confuses me because I'm new to it, and I don't quite understand how this works.
Especially with SG_CHAIN. I'm assuming that you've monitored /proc/vmstat for
nr_foll_pin* ?

>   
>   	sg_free_table(&umem->sg_head);
>   }

thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA