From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
Marek Majkowski <marek@cloudflare.com>,
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] xdp: Support multiple programs on a single interface through chain calls
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 21:29:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o8yzq734.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191002191522.GA9196@pc-66.home>
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 09:43:49AM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> > This series adds support for executing multiple XDP programs on a single
>> > interface in sequence, through the use of chain calls, as discussed at the Linux
>> > Plumbers Conference last month:
>> >
>> > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/4/contributions/460/
>> >
>> > # HIGH-LEVEL IDEA
>> >
>> > The basic idea is to express the chain call sequence through a special map type,
>> > which contains a mapping from a (program, return code) tuple to another program
>> > to run in next in the sequence. Userspace can populate this map to express
>> > arbitrary call sequences, and update the sequence by updating or replacing the
>> > map.
>> >
>> > The actual execution of the program sequence is done in bpf_prog_run_xdp(),
>> > which will lookup the chain sequence map, and if found, will loop through calls
>> > to BPF_PROG_RUN, looking up the next XDP program in the sequence based on the
>> > previous program ID and return code.
>> >
>> > An XDP chain call map can be installed on an interface by means of a new netlink
>> > attribute containing an fd pointing to a chain call map. This can be supplied
>> > along with the XDP prog fd, so that a chain map is always installed together
>> > with an XDP program.
>> >
>> > # PERFORMANCE
>> >
>> > I performed a simple performance test to get an initial feel for the overhead of
>> > the chain call mechanism. This test consists of running only two programs in
>> > sequence: One that returns XDP_PASS and another that returns XDP_DROP. I then
>> > measure the drop PPS performance and compare it to a baseline of just a single
>> > program that only returns XDP_DROP.
>> >
>> > For comparison, a test case that uses regular eBPF tail calls to sequence two
>> > programs together is also included. Finally, because 'perf' showed that the
>> > hashmap lookup was the largest single source of overhead, I also added a test
>> > case where I removed the jhash() call from the hashmap code, and just use the
>> > u32 key directly as an index into the hash bucket structure.
>> >
>> > The performance for these different cases is as follows (with retpolines disabled):
>>
>> retpolines enabled would also be interesting.
>>
>> >
>> > | Test case | Perf | Add. overhead | Total overhead |
>> > |---------------------------------+-----------+---------------+----------------|
>> > | Before patch (XDP DROP program) | 31.0 Mpps | | |
>> > | After patch (XDP DROP program) | 28.9 Mpps | 2.3 ns | 2.3 ns |
>>
>> IMO even 1 Mpps overhead is too much for a feature that is primarily about
>> ease of use. Sacrificing performance to make userland a bit easier is hard
>> to justify for me when XDP _is_ singularly about performance. Also that is
>> nearly 10% overhead which is fairly large. So I think going forward the
>> performance gab needs to be removed.
>
> Fully agree, for the case where this facility is not used, it must
> have *zero* overhead. This is /one/ map flavor, in future there will
> be other facilities with different use-cases, but we cannot place them
> all into the critical fast-path. Given this is BPF, we have the
> flexibility that this can be hidden behind the scenes by rewriting and
> therefore only add overhead when used.
>
> What I also see as a red flag with this proposal is the fact that it's
> tied to XDP only because you need to go and hack bpf_prog_run_xdp()
> all the way to fetch xdp->rxq->dev->xdp_chain_map even though the
> map/concept itself is rather generic and could be used in various
> other program types as well. I'm very sure that once there, people
> would request it. Therefore, better to explore a way where this has no
> changes to BPF_PROG_RUN() similar to the original tail call work.
As I said in the other reply, I actually went out of my way to make this
XDP only. But since you're now the third person requesting it not be, I
guess I'll take the hint and look at a more general way to hook this in :)
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-02 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-02 13:30 [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] xdp: Support multiple programs on a single interface through chain calls Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/9] hashtab: Add new bpf_map_fd_put_value op Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/9] xdp: Add new xdp_chain_map type for specifying XDP call sequences Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 15:50 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-10-02 18:25 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/9] xdp: Support setting and getting device chain map Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 15:50 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-10-02 18:32 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 18:07 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-02 18:29 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/9] xdp: Implement chain call logic to support multiple programs on one interface Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 17:33 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-02 17:53 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/9] tools/include/uapi: Add XDP chain map definitions Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/9] tools/libbpf_probes: Add support for xdp_chain map type Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/9] bpftool: Add definitions " Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 8/9] libbpf: Add support for setting and getting XDP chain maps Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 13:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next 9/9] selftests: Add tests for XDP chain calls Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 15:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/9] xdp: Support multiple programs on a single interface through " Alan Maguire
2019-10-02 15:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 16:34 ` John Fastabend
2019-10-02 18:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 20:34 ` John Fastabend
2019-10-03 7:48 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-03 10:09 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2019-10-03 19:45 ` John Fastabend
2019-10-02 16:35 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-10-02 18:54 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 16:43 ` John Fastabend
2019-10-02 19:09 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 19:15 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-10-02 19:29 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-10-02 19:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-03 7:58 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 18:38 ` Song Liu
2019-10-02 18:54 ` Song Liu
2019-10-02 19:25 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-03 8:53 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2019-10-03 14:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-03 14:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-03 14:53 ` Edward Cree
2019-10-03 18:49 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2019-10-03 19:35 ` John Fastabend
2019-10-04 8:09 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-04 10:34 ` Edward Cree
2019-10-04 15:58 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-10-07 16:43 ` Edward Cree
2019-10-07 17:12 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-10-07 19:21 ` Edward Cree
2019-10-07 21:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-10-02 19:23 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-02 19:49 ` Song Liu
2019-10-03 7:59 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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=87o8yzq734.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=marek@cloudflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=yhs@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).