[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] cgroup/bpf: fast path skb BPF filtering
On 12/15/21 22:07, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pavel Begunkov <> wrote:
>> On 12/15/21 19:15, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:54 AM Pavel Begunkov <> wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/21 18:24, wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> Yeah, last time I saw 2-3% as well, but it was due to kmalloc, see
>>> more details in 9cacf81f8161, it was pretty visible under perf.
>>> That's why I'm a bit skeptical of your claims of direct calls being
>>> somehow visible in these 2-3% (even skb pulls/pushes are not 2-3%?).
>> migrate_disable/enable together were taking somewhat in-between
>> 1% and 1.5% in profiling, don't remember the exact number. The rest
>> should be from rcu_read_lock/unlock() in BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS()
>> and other extra bits on the way.
> You probably have a preemptiple kernel and preemptible rcu which most
> likely explains why you see the overhead and I won't (non-preemptible
> kernel in our env, rcu_read_lock is essentially a nop, just a compiler
> barrier).

Right. For reference tried out non-preemptible, perf shows the function
taking 0.8% with a NIC and 1.2% with a dummy netdev.

>> I'm skeptical I'll be able to measure inlining one function,
>> variability between boots/runs is usually greater and would hide it.
> Right, that's why I suggested to mirror what we do in set/getsockopt
> instead of the new extra CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED. But I'll leave it up
> to you, Martin and the rest.

Pavel Begunkov

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-16 14:22    [W:0.135 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site