Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftest/bpf/benchs: add bpf_for_each benchmark

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:04 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 3:18 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Joanne Koong <joannekoong@xxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > Add benchmark to measure the overhead of the bpf_for_each call
> >> > for a specified number of iterations.
> >> >
> >> > Testing this on qemu on my dev machine on 1 thread, the data is
> >> > as follows:
> >>
> >> Absolute numbers from some random dev machine are not terribly useful;
> >> others have no way of replicating your tests. A more meaningful
> >> benchmark would need a baseline to compare to; in this case I guess that
> >> would be a regular loop? Do you have any numbers comparing the callback
> >> to just looping?
> >
> > Measuring empty for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) is meaningless, you should
> > expect a number in billions of "operations" per second on modern
> > server CPUs. So that will give you no idea. Those numbers are useful
> > as a ballpark number of what's the overhead of bpf_for_each() helper
> > and callbacks. And 12ns per "iteration" is meaningful to have a good
> > idea of how slow that can be. Depending on your hardware it can be
> > different by 2x, maybe 3x, but not 100x.
> >
> > But measuring inc + cmp + jne as a baseline is both unrealistic and
> > doesn't give much more extra information. But you can assume 2B/s,
> > give or take.
> >
> > And you also can run this benchmark on your own on your hardware to
> > get "real" numbers, as much as you can expect real numbers from
> > artificial microbenchmark, of course.
> >
> >
> > I read those numbers as "plenty fast" :)
>
> Hmm, okay, fair enough, but I think it would be good to have the "~12 ns
> per iteration" figure featured prominently in the commit message, then :)
>

We discussed with Joanne offline adding an ops_report_final() helper
that will output both throughput (X ops/s) and latency/overhead (
(1000000000/X) ns/op), so that no one had to do any math.

> -Toke
>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux