From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/3] selftest/bpf: fmod_ret prog and implement test_overhead as part of bench
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:11:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b06ff0a8-2f44-522f-f071-141072d6f62b@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzaXUwgr70WteC=egTgii=si8OvVLCL9KCs-KwkPRPGQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/11/20 9:22 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 10:24 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/20 4:20 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>> Add fmod_ret BPF program to existing test_overhead selftest. Also re-implement
>>> user-space benchmarking part into benchmark runner to compare results. Results
>>> with ./bench are consistently somewhat lower than test_overhead's, but relative
>>> performance of various types of BPF programs stay consisten (e.g., kretprobe is
>>> noticeably slower).
>>>
>>> run_bench_rename.sh script (in benchs/ directory) was used to produce the
>>> following numbers:
>>>
>>> base : 3.975 ± 0.065M/s
>>> kprobe : 3.268 ± 0.095M/s
>>> kretprobe : 2.496 ± 0.040M/s
>>> rawtp : 3.899 ± 0.078M/s
>>> fentry : 3.836 ± 0.049M/s
>>> fexit : 3.660 ± 0.082M/s
>>> fmodret : 3.776 ± 0.033M/s
>>>
>>> While running test_overhead gives:
>>>
>>> task_rename base 4457K events per sec
>>> task_rename kprobe 3849K events per sec
>>> task_rename kretprobe 2729K events per sec
>>> task_rename raw_tp 4506K events per sec
>>> task_rename fentry 4381K events per sec
>>> task_rename fexit 4349K events per sec
>>> task_rename fmod_ret 4130K events per sec
>>
>> Do you where the overhead is and how we could provide options in
>> bench to reduce the overhead so we can achieve similar numbers?
>> For benchmarking, sometimes you really want to see "true"
>> potential of a particular implementation.
>
> Alright, let's make it an official bench-off... :) And the reason for
> this discrepancy, turns out to be... not atomics at all! But rather a
> single-threaded vs multi-threaded process (well, at least task_rename
> happening from non-main thread, I didn't narrow it down further).
It would be good to find out why and have a scheme (e.g. some kind
of affinity binding) to close the gap.
> Atomics actually make very little difference, which gives me a good
> peace of mind :)
>
> So, I've built and ran test_overhead (selftest) and bench both as
> multi-threaded and single-threaded apps. Corresponding results match
> almost perfectly. And that's while test_overhead doesn't use atomics
> at all, while bench still does. Then I also ran test_overhead with
> added generics to match bench implementation. There are barely any
> differences, see two last sets of results.
>
> BTW, selftest results seems bit lower from the ones in original
> commit, probably because I made it run more iterations (like 40 times
> more) to have more stable results.
>
> So here are the results:
>
> Single-threaded implementations
> ===============================
>
> /* bench: single-threaded, atomics */
> base : 4.622 ± 0.049M/s
> kprobe : 3.673 ± 0.052M/s
> kretprobe : 2.625 ± 0.052M/s
> rawtp : 4.369 ± 0.089M/s
> fentry : 4.201 ± 0.558M/s
> fexit : 4.309 ± 0.148M/s
> fmodret : 4.314 ± 0.203M/s
>
> /* selftest: single-threaded, no atomics */
> task_rename base 4555K events per sec
> task_rename kprobe 3643K events per sec
> task_rename kretprobe 2506K events per sec
> task_rename raw_tp 4303K events per sec
> task_rename fentry 4307K events per sec
> task_rename fexit 4010K events per sec
> task_rename fmod_ret 3984K events per sec
>
>
> Multi-threaded implementations
> ==============================
>
> /* bench: multi-threaded w/ atomics */
> base : 3.910 ± 0.023M/s
> kprobe : 3.048 ± 0.037M/s
> kretprobe : 2.300 ± 0.015M/s
> rawtp : 3.687 ± 0.034M/s
> fentry : 3.740 ± 0.087M/s
> fexit : 3.510 ± 0.009M/s
> fmodret : 3.485 ± 0.050M/s
>
> /* selftest: multi-threaded w/ atomics */
> task_rename base 3872K events per sec
> task_rename kprobe 3068K events per sec
> task_rename kretprobe 2350K events per sec
> task_rename raw_tp 3731K events per sec
> task_rename fentry 3639K events per sec
> task_rename fexit 3558K events per sec
> task_rename fmod_ret 3511K events per sec
>
> /* selftest: multi-threaded, no atomics */
> task_rename base 3945K events per sec
> task_rename kprobe 3298K events per sec
> task_rename kretprobe 2451K events per sec
> task_rename raw_tp 3718K events per sec
> task_rename fentry 3782K events per sec
> task_rename fexit 3543K events per sec
> task_rename fmod_ret 3526K events per sec
>
>
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-12 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-08 23:20 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/3] Add benchmark runner and few benchmarks Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-08 23:20 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] selftests/bpf: add benchmark runner infrastructure Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-09 17:10 ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-12 3:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-12 14:39 ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-08 23:20 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/3] selftest/bpf: fmod_ret prog and implement test_overhead as part of bench Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-09 17:23 ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-12 4:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-12 15:11 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2020-05-12 17:23 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-12 17:47 ` Yonghong Song
2020-05-08 23:20 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/3] selftest/bpf: add BPF triggering benchmark Andrii Nakryiko
2020-05-09 17:43 ` Yonghong Song
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=b06ff0a8-2f44-522f-f071-141072d6f62b@fb.com \
--to=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.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).