lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] cgroup/bpf: fast path skb BPF filtering
From
On 12/15/21 18:24, sdf@google.com wrote:
> On 12/15, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 12/15/21 17:33, sdf@google.com wrote:
>> > On 12/15, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> > > On 12/15/21 16:51, sdf@google.com wrote:
>> > > > On 12/15, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> > > > > � /* Wrappers for __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb() guarded by cgroup_bpf_enabled. */
>> > > > > � #define BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_INET_INGRESS(sk, skb)����������������� \
>> > > > > � ({����������������������������������������� \
>> > > > > ����� int __ret = 0;��������������������������������� \
>> > > > > -��� if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS))������������� \
>> > > > > +��� if (cgroup_bpf_enabled(CGROUP_INET_INGRESS) && sk &&������������� \
>> > > > > +������� CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED((sk), CGROUP_INET_INGRESS))���������� \
>> > > >
>> > > > Why not add this __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb check to
>> > > > __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb? Result of sock_cgroup_ptr() is already there
>> > > > and you can use it. Maybe move the things around if you want
>> > > > it to happen earlier.
>> >
>> > > For inlining. Just wanted to get it done right, otherwise I'll likely be
>> > > returning to it back in a few months complaining that I see measurable
>> > > overhead from the function call :)
>> >
>> > Do you expect that direct call to bring any visible overhead?
>> > Would be nice to compare that inlined case vs
>> > __cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty inside of __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_skb
>> > while you're at it (plus move offset initialization down?).
>
>> Sorry but that would be waste of time. I naively hope it will be visible
>> with net at some moment (if not already), that's how it was with io_uring,
>> that's what I see in the block layer. And in anyway, if just one inlined
>> won't make a difference, then 10 will.
>
> I can probably do more experiments on my side once your patch is
> accepted. I'm mostly concerned with getsockopt(TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE).
> If you claim there is visible overhead for a direct call then there
> should be visible benefit to using CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED there as
> well.

Interesting, sounds getsockopt might be performance sensitive to
someone.

FWIW, I forgot to mention that for testing tx I'm using io_uring
(for both zc and not) with good submission batching.

--
Pavel Begunkov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-15 19:54    [W:0.097 / U:2.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site