linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/5] bpf_prog_pack followup
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:00:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <93DA8BBD-0599-4384-B73E-FAC1DC047D10@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220624215712.3050672-1-song@kernel.org>

oops, wrong address for x86@. 

CC x86@kernel.org

> On Jun 24, 2022, at 2:57 PM, Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> This set is the second half of v4 [1].
> 
> Changes v4 => v5:
> 1. Rebase and resolve conflicts due to module.c split.
> 2. Update experiment results (below).
> 
> For our web service production benchmark, bpf_prog_pack on 4kB pages
> gives 0.5% to 0.7% more throughput than not using bpf_prog_pack.
> bpf_prog_pack on 2MB pages 0.6% to 0.9% more throughput than not using
> bpf_prog_pack. Note that 0.5% is a huge improvement for our fleet. I
> believe this is also significant for other companies with many thousand
> servers.
> 
> Update: Further experiments (suggested by Rick Edgecombe) showed that most
> of benefit on the web service benchmark came from less direct map
> fragmentation. The experiment is as follows:
> 
> Side A: 2MB bpf prog pack on a single 2MB page;
> Side B: 2MB bpf prog pack on 512x 4kB pages;
> 
> The system only uses about 200kB for BPF programs, but 2MB is allocated
> for bpf_prog_pack (for both A and B). Therefore, direct map fragmentation
> caused by BPF programs is elminated, and we are only measuring the
> performance difference of 1x 2MB page vs. ~50 4kB pages (we only use
> about 50 out of the 512 pages). For these two sides, the difference in
> system throughput is within the noise. I also measured iTLB-load-misses
> caused by bpf programs, which is ~300/s for case A, and ~1600/s for case B.
> The overall iTLB-load-misses is about 1.5M/s on these hosts. Therefore,
> we can clearly see 2MB page reduces iTLB misses, but the difference is not
> enough to have visible impact on system throughput.
> 
> Of course, the impact of iTLB miss will be more significant for systems
> with more BPF programs loaded.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220520235758.1858153-1-song@kernel.org/
> 
> Song Liu (5):
>  module: introduce module_alloc_huge
>  bpf: use module_alloc_huge for bpf_prog_pack
>  vmalloc: WARN for set_vm_flush_reset_perms() on huge pages
>  vmalloc: introduce huge_vmalloc_supported
>  bpf: simplify select_bpf_prog_pack_size
> 
> arch/x86/kernel/module.c     | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/moduleloader.h |  5 +++++
> include/linux/vmalloc.h      |  7 +++++++
> kernel/bpf/core.c            | 25 ++++++++++---------------
> kernel/module/main.c         |  8 ++++++++
> mm/vmalloc.c                 |  5 +++++
> 6 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> --
> 2.30.2


      parent reply	other threads:[~2022-06-24 22:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-24 21:57 [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/5] bpf_prog_pack followup Song Liu
2022-06-24 21:57 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/5] module: introduce module_alloc_huge Song Liu
2022-07-01 23:20   ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-07-06  4:39     ` Song Liu
2022-07-07 20:11       ` Luis Chamberlain
2022-06-24 21:57 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/5] bpf: use module_alloc_huge for bpf_prog_pack Song Liu
2022-06-24 21:57 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 3/5] vmalloc: WARN for set_vm_flush_reset_perms() on huge pages Song Liu
2022-06-24 21:57 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 4/5] vmalloc: introduce huge_vmalloc_supported Song Liu
2022-06-24 21:57 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 5/5] bpf: simplify select_bpf_prog_pack_size Song Liu
2022-06-24 22:00 ` Song Liu [this message]

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=93DA8BBD-0599-4384-B73E-FAC1DC047D10@fb.com \
    --to=songliubraving@fb.com \
    --cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@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 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).