From: Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>
To: <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <andrii@kernel.org>, <ast@kernel.org>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
<kafai@fb.com>, <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 5/5] bpf/benchs: Add benchmarks for comparing hashmap lookups w/ vs. w/out bloom filter
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:45:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211027234504.30744-6-joannekoong@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211027234504.30744-1-joannekoong@fb.com>
This patch adds benchmark tests for comparing the performance of hashmap
lookups without the bloom filter vs. hashmap lookups with the bloom filter.
Checking the bloom filter first for whether the element exists should
overall enable a higher throughput for hashmap lookups, since if the
element does not exist in the bloom filter, we can avoid a costly lookup in
the hashmap.
On average, using 5 hash functions in the bloom filter tended to perform
the best across the widest range of different entry sizes. The benchmark
results using 5 hash functions (running on 8 threads on a machine with one
numa node, and taking the average of 3 runs) were roughly as follows:
value_size = 4 bytes -
10k entries: 30% faster
50k entries: 40% faster
100k entries: 40% faster
500k entres: 70% faster
1 million entries: 90% faster
5 million entries: 140% faster
value_size = 8 bytes -
10k entries: 30% faster
50k entries: 40% faster
100k entries: 50% faster
500k entres: 80% faster
1 million entries: 100% faster
5 million entries: 150% faster
value_size = 16 bytes -
10k entries: 20% faster
50k entries: 30% faster
100k entries: 35% faster
500k entres: 65% faster
1 million entries: 85% faster
5 million entries: 110% faster
value_size = 40 bytes -
10k entries: 5% faster
50k entries: 15% faster
100k entries: 20% faster
500k entres: 65% faster
1 million entries: 75% faster
5 million entries: 120% faster
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 23 ++++++--
.../bpf/benchs/bench_bloom_filter_map.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++
.../bpf/benchs/run_bench_bloom_filter_map.sh | 17 ++++++
.../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_common.sh | 12 ++++
4 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
index a1d5dffe5ef6..cc4722f693e9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
@@ -92,20 +92,22 @@ void hits_drops_report_progress(int iter, struct bench_res *res, long delta_ns)
printf("Iter %3d (%7.3lfus): ",
iter, (delta_ns - 1000000000) / 1000.0);
- printf("hits %8.3lfM/s (%7.3lfM/prod), drops %8.3lfM/s\n",
- hits_per_sec, hits_per_prod, drops_per_sec);
+ printf("hits %8.3lfM/s (%7.3lfM/prod), drops %8.3lfM/s, total operations %8.3lfM/s\n",
+ hits_per_sec, hits_per_prod, drops_per_sec, hits_per_sec + drops_per_sec);
}
void hits_drops_report_final(struct bench_res res[], int res_cnt)
{
int i;
- double hits_mean = 0.0, drops_mean = 0.0;
- double hits_stddev = 0.0, drops_stddev = 0.0;
+ double hits_mean = 0.0, drops_mean = 0.0, total_ops_mean = 0.0;
+ double hits_stddev = 0.0, drops_stddev = 0.0, total_ops_stddev = 0.0;
+ double total_ops;
for (i = 0; i < res_cnt; i++) {
hits_mean += res[i].hits / 1000000.0 / (0.0 + res_cnt);
drops_mean += res[i].drops / 1000000.0 / (0.0 + res_cnt);
}
+ total_ops_mean = hits_mean + drops_mean;
if (res_cnt > 1) {
for (i = 0; i < res_cnt; i++) {
@@ -115,14 +117,21 @@ void hits_drops_report_final(struct bench_res res[], int res_cnt)
drops_stddev += (drops_mean - res[i].drops / 1000000.0) *
(drops_mean - res[i].drops / 1000000.0) /
(res_cnt - 1.0);
+ total_ops = res[i].hits + res[i].drops;
+ total_ops_stddev += (total_ops_mean - total_ops / 1000000.0) *
+ (total_ops_mean - total_ops / 1000000.0) /
+ (res_cnt - 1.0);
}
hits_stddev = sqrt(hits_stddev);
drops_stddev = sqrt(drops_stddev);
+ total_ops_stddev = sqrt(total_ops_stddev);
}
printf("Summary: hits %8.3lf \u00B1 %5.3lfM/s (%7.3lfM/prod), ",
hits_mean, hits_stddev, hits_mean / env.producer_cnt);
- printf("drops %8.3lf \u00B1 %5.3lfM/s\n",
+ printf("drops %8.3lf \u00B1 %5.3lfM/s, ",
drops_mean, drops_stddev);
+ printf("total operations %8.3lf \u00B1 %5.3lfM/s\n",
+ total_ops_mean, total_ops_stddev);
}
const char *argp_program_version = "benchmark";
@@ -357,6 +366,8 @@ extern const struct bench bench_pb_custom;
extern const struct bench bench_bloom_lookup;
extern const struct bench bench_bloom_update;
extern const struct bench bench_bloom_false_positive;
+extern const struct bench bench_hashmap_without_bloom;
+extern const struct bench bench_hashmap_with_bloom;
static const struct bench *benchs[] = {
&bench_count_global,
@@ -381,6 +392,8 @@ static const struct bench *benchs[] = {
&bench_bloom_lookup,
&bench_bloom_update,
&bench_bloom_false_positive,
+ &bench_hashmap_without_bloom,
+ &bench_hashmap_with_bloom,
};
static void setup_benchmark()
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_bloom_filter_map.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_bloom_filter_map.c
index 4bafad418a8a..6eeeed2913e6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_bloom_filter_map.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_bloom_filter_map.c
@@ -346,6 +346,41 @@ static void false_positive_setup(void)
}
}
+static void hashmap_with_bloom_setup(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_link *link;
+
+ ctx.use_hashmap = true;
+ ctx.hashmap_use_bloom = true;
+
+ ctx.skel = setup_skeleton();
+
+ populate_maps();
+
+ link = bpf_program__attach(ctx.skel->progs.bloom_hashmap_lookup);
+ if (!link) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "failed to attach program!\n");
+ exit(1);
+ }
+}
+
+static void hashmap_no_bloom_setup(void)
+{
+ struct bpf_link *link;
+
+ ctx.use_hashmap = true;
+
+ ctx.skel = setup_skeleton();
+
+ populate_maps();
+
+ link = bpf_program__attach(ctx.skel->progs.bloom_hashmap_lookup);
+ if (!link) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "failed to attach program!\n");
+ exit(1);
+ }
+}
+
static void measure(struct bench_res *res)
{
unsigned long total_hits = 0, total_drops = 0, total_false_hits = 0;
@@ -418,3 +453,25 @@ const struct bench bench_bloom_false_positive = {
.report_progress = false_hits_report_progress,
.report_final = false_hits_report_final,
};
+
+const struct bench bench_hashmap_without_bloom = {
+ .name = "hashmap-without-bloom",
+ .validate = validate,
+ .setup = hashmap_no_bloom_setup,
+ .producer_thread = producer,
+ .consumer_thread = consumer,
+ .measure = measure,
+ .report_progress = hits_drops_report_progress,
+ .report_final = hits_drops_report_final,
+};
+
+const struct bench bench_hashmap_with_bloom = {
+ .name = "hashmap-with-bloom",
+ .validate = validate,
+ .setup = hashmap_with_bloom_setup,
+ .producer_thread = producer,
+ .consumer_thread = consumer,
+ .measure = measure,
+ .report_progress = hits_drops_report_progress,
+ .report_final = hits_drops_report_final,
+};
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_bloom_filter_map.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_bloom_filter_map.sh
index d03d0e5c91cd..8ffd385ab2f4 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_bloom_filter_map.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_bloom_filter_map.sh
@@ -26,3 +26,20 @@ subtitle "value_size: $v bytes, # threads: $t, # hashes: $h"
done
done
done
+
+header "Hashmap without bloom filter vs. hashmap with bloom filter (throughput, 8 threads)"
+for v in 2 4 8 16 40; do
+for h in {1..10}; do
+subtitle "value_size: $v, # hashes: $h"
+ for e in 10000 50000 75000 100000 250000 500000 750000 1000000 2500000 5000000; do
+ printf "%'d entries -\n" $e
+ printf "\t"
+ summarize_total "Hashmap without bloom filter: " \
+ "$($RUN_BENCH --nr_hash_funcs $h --nr_entries $e --value_size $v -p 8 hashmap-without-bloom)"
+ printf "\t"
+ summarize_total "Hashmap with bloom filter: " \
+ "$($RUN_BENCH --nr_hash_funcs $h --nr_entries $e --value_size $v -p 8 hashmap-with-bloom)"
+ done
+ printf "\n"
+done
+done
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_common.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_common.sh
index 670f23b037c4..9a16be78b180 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_common.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_common.sh
@@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ function percentage()
echo "$*" | sed -E "s/.*Percentage\s=\s+([0-9]+\.[0-9]+).*/\1/"
}
+function total()
+{
+ echo "$*" | sed -E "s/.*total operations\s+([0-9]+\.[0-9]+ ± [0-9]+\.[0-9]+M\/s).*/\1/"
+}
+
function summarize()
{
bench="$1"
@@ -46,3 +51,10 @@ function summarize_percentage()
summary=$(echo $2 | tail -n1)
printf "%-20s %s%%\n" "$bench" "$(percentage $summary)"
}
+
+function summarize_total()
+{
+ bench="$1"
+ summary=$(echo $2 | tail -n1)
+ printf "%-20s %s\n" "$bench" "$(total $summary)"
+}
--
2.30.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-27 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-27 23:44 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/5] Implement bloom filter map Joanne Koong
2021-10-27 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/5] bpf: Add bloom filter map implementation Joanne Koong
2021-10-28 18:15 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-10-29 0:15 ` Joanne Koong
2021-10-29 0:44 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-10-28 20:35 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-10-28 21:14 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-10-29 3:17 ` Joanne Koong
2021-10-29 4:49 ` Martin KaFai Lau
[not found] ` <6d930e97-424d-393d-4731-ac8eda9e5156@fb.com>
2021-10-29 6:40 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2021-10-27 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/5] libbpf: Add "map_extra" as a per-map-type extra flag Joanne Koong
2021-10-28 18:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-10-27 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/5] selftests/bpf: Add bloom filter map test cases Joanne Koong
2021-10-28 18:16 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-10-27 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 4/5] bpf/benchs: Add benchmark tests for bloom filter throughput + false positive Joanne Koong
2021-10-28 18:26 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-10-27 23:45 ` Joanne Koong [this message]
2021-10-28 22:10 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/5] Implement bloom filter map Martin KaFai Lau
2021-10-28 23:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-10-29 0:23 ` Joanne Koong
2021-10-29 0:30 ` 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=20211027234504.30744-6-joannekoong@fb.com \
--to=joannekoong@fb.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.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).