bpf.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: "Björn Töpel" <bjorn.topel@gmail.com>
Cc: brouer@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	magnus.karlsson@gmail.com, magnus.karlsson@intel.com,
	jonathan.lemon@gmail.com, ecree@solarflare.com,
	thoiland@redhat.com, andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/6] Introduce the BPF dispatcher
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:00:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191209180008.72c98c53@carbon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191209135522.16576-1-bjorn.topel@gmail.com>

On Mon,  9 Dec 2019 14:55:16 +0100
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@gmail.com> wrote:

> Performance
> ===========
> 
> The tests were performed using the xdp_rxq_info sample program with
> the following command-line:
> 
> 1. XDP_DRV:
>   # xdp_rxq_info --dev eth0 --action XDP_DROP
> 2. XDP_SKB:
>   # xdp_rxq_info --dev eth0 -S --action XDP_DROP
> 3. xdp-perf, from selftests/bpf:
>   # test_progs -v -t xdp_perf
> 
> 
> Run with mitigations=auto
> -------------------------
> 
> Baseline:
> 1. 22.0 Mpps
> 2. 3.8 Mpps
> 3. 15 ns
> 
> Dispatcher:
> 1. 29.4 Mpps (+34%)
> 2. 4.0 Mpps  (+5%)
> 3. 5 ns      (+66%)

Thanks for providing these extra measurement points.  This is good
work.  I just want to remind people that when working at these high
speeds, it is easy to get amazed by a +34% improvement, but we have to
be careful to understand that this is saving approx 10 ns time or
cycles.

In reality cycles or time saved in #2 (3.8 Mpps -> 4.0 Mpps) is larger
(1/3.8-1/4)*1000 = 13.15 ns.  Than #1 (22.0 Mpps -> 29.4 Mpps)
(1/22-1/29.4)*1000 = 11.44 ns. Test #3 keeps us honest 15 ns -> 5 ns =
10 ns.  The 10 ns improvement is a big deal in XDP context, and also
correspond to my own experience with retpoline (approx 12 ns overhead).

To Bjørn, I would appreciate more digits on your Mpps numbers, so I get
more accuracy on my checks-and-balances I described above.  I suspect
the 3.8 Mpps -> 4.0 Mpps will be closer to the other numbers when we
get more accuracy.

 
> Dispatcher (full; walk all entries, and fallback):
> 1. 20.4 Mpps (-7%)
> 2. 3.8 Mpps  
> 3. 18 ns     (-20%)
> 
> Run with mitigations=off
> ------------------------
> 
> Baseline:
> 1. 29.6 Mpps
> 2. 4.1 Mpps
> 3. 5 ns
> 
> Dispatcher:
> 1. 30.7 Mpps (+4%)
> 2. 4.1 Mpps
> 3. 5 ns

While +4% sounds good, but could be measurement noise ;-)

 (1/29.6-1/30.7)*1000 = 1.21 ns

As both #3 says 5 ns.

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-12-09 17:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-09 13:55 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/6] Introduce the BPF dispatcher Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 13:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/6] bpf: move trampoline JIT image allocation to a function Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 13:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/6] bpf: introduce BPF dispatcher Björn Töpel
2019-12-10  5:50   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-12-10  5:54     ` Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 13:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/6] bpf, xdp: start using the BPF dispatcher for XDP Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 13:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/6] bpf: start using the BPF dispatcher in BPF_TEST_RUN Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 13:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/6] selftests: bpf: add xdp_perf test Björn Töpel
2019-12-10 11:05   ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2019-12-10 11:56     ` Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 13:55 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/6] bpf, x86: align dispatcher branch targets to 16B Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 15:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/6] Introduce the BPF dispatcher Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-12-09 17:42   ` Björn Töpel
2019-12-11 12:38     ` Björn Töpel
2019-12-11 13:17       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-12-09 17:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2019-12-09 17:45   ` Björn Töpel
2019-12-09 19:50     ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2019-12-10 19:28 ` Samudrala, Sridhar
2019-12-10 20:04   ` Björn Töpel
2019-12-10 19:59 ` Björn Töpel

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=20191209180008.72c98c53@carbon \
    --to=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bjorn.topel@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=ecree@solarflare.com \
    --cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
    --cc=magnus.karlsson@gmail.com \
    --cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=thoiland@redhat.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).