All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <ast@fb.com>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>, <kernel-team@fb.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 3/4] selftest/bpf: fmod_ret prog and implement test_overhead as part of bench
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 18:10:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <33778f26-8381-8607-4e14-d59c6e5f320c@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200512192445.2351848-4-andriin@fb.com>



On 5/12/20 12:24 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Add fmod_ret BPF program to existing test_overhead selftest. Also re-implement
> user-space benchmarking part into benchmark runner to compare results. Results
> with ./bench are consistently somewhat lower than test_overhead's, but relative
> performance of various types of BPF programs stay consisten (e.g., kretprobe is
> noticeably slower). This slowdown seems to be coming from the fact that
> test_overhead is single-threaded, while benchmark always spins off at least
> one thread for producer. This has been confirmed by hacking multi-threaded
> test_overhead variant and also single-threaded bench variant. Resutls are
> below. run_bench_rename.sh script from benchs/ subdirectory was used to
> produce results for ./bench.
> 
> Single-threaded implementations
> ===============================
> 
> /* bench: single-threaded, atomics */
> base      :    4.622 ± 0.049M/s
> kprobe    :    3.673 ± 0.052M/s
> kretprobe :    2.625 ± 0.052M/s
> rawtp     :    4.369 ± 0.089M/s
> fentry    :    4.201 ± 0.558M/s
> fexit     :    4.309 ± 0.148M/s
> fmodret   :    4.314 ± 0.203M/s
> 
> /* selftest: single-threaded, no atomics */
> task_rename base        4555K events per sec
> task_rename kprobe      3643K events per sec
> task_rename kretprobe   2506K events per sec
> task_rename raw_tp      4303K events per sec
> task_rename fentry      4307K events per sec
> task_rename fexit       4010K events per sec
> task_rename fmod_ret    3984K events per sec
> 
> Multi-threaded implementations
> ==============================
> 
> /* bench: multi-threaded w/ atomics */
> base      :    3.910 ± 0.023M/s
> kprobe    :    3.048 ± 0.037M/s
> kretprobe :    2.300 ± 0.015M/s
> rawtp     :    3.687 ± 0.034M/s
> fentry    :    3.740 ± 0.087M/s
> fexit     :    3.510 ± 0.009M/s
> fmodret   :    3.485 ± 0.050M/s
> 
> /* selftest: multi-threaded w/ atomics */
> task_rename base        3872K events per sec
> task_rename kprobe      3068K events per sec
> task_rename kretprobe   2350K events per sec
> task_rename raw_tp      3731K events per sec
> task_rename fentry      3639K events per sec
> task_rename fexit       3558K events per sec
> task_rename fmod_ret    3511K events per sec
> 
> /* selftest: multi-threaded, no atomics */
> task_rename base        3945K events per sec
> task_rename kprobe      3298K events per sec
> task_rename kretprobe   2451K events per sec
> task_rename raw_tp      3718K events per sec
> task_rename fentry      3782K events per sec
> task_rename fexit       3543K events per sec
> task_rename fmod_ret    3526K events per sec
> 
> Note that the fact that ./bench benchmark always uses atomic increments for
> counting, while test_overhead doesn't, doesn't influence test results all that
> much.
> 
> Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-13  1:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-12 19:24 [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/4] Add benchmark runner and few benchmarks Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-12 19:24 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 1/4] selftests/bpf: extract parse_num_list into generic testing_helpers.c Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-13  1:08   ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-12 19:24 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: add benchmark runner infrastructure Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-13  1:09   ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-12 19:24 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 3/4] selftest/bpf: fmod_ret prog and implement test_overhead as part of bench Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-13  1:10   ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2020-05-12 19:24 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 4/4] selftest/bpf: add BPF triggering benchmark Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-13 19:23 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/4] Add benchmark runner and few benchmarks Alexei Starovoitov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=33778f26-8381-8607-4e14-d59c6e5f320c@fb.com \
    --to=yhs@fb.com \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=andriin@fb.com \
    --cc=ast@fb.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.