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
next prev 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).