All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yatsenko <mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org,
	daniel@iogearbox.net, kernel-team@meta.com, eddyz87@gmail.com,
	memxor@gmail.com, Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Speed up htab lookups for u32/u64 keys
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 07:31:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <arIu1SA3F66HhMkv@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260921-hashtab_fast_hashfn-v2-1-79aa962ec56b@meta.com>

On 26/09/21 02:28PM, Mykyta Yatsenko wrote:
> From: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>
> 
> Four- and eight-byte keys are common enough to warrant specialized htab
> lookups. Fold JHASH_INITVAL and the key length into hashrnd once when
> allocating maps with these key sizes.
> 
> For JITed BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH lookups, htab_map_gen_lookup() also knows the
> map's fixed key size. Select u32- and u64-specific lookup entry points so
> the compiler can specialize both hash setup and key comparison. Other key
> sizes continue to use the generic lookup entry point.
> 
> This preserves the jhash2() result and lookup semantics while avoiding
> generic length handling and repeated state setup.
> 
> Measure this with six runs of:
> 
>   ./bench -w3 -d10 -a bpf-hashmap-lookup \
>       --key_size KEY_SIZE --max_entries MAX_ENTRIES \
>       --nr_entries NR_ENTRIES --nr_loops NR_LOOPS \
>       --map_flags 0x40
> 
> inside a vng guest with two vCPUs and 4 GiB of RAM. Run the baseline
> first and the optimized kernel second. Use these workloads:
> 
>              max_entries   nr_entries    nr_loops
>   small              512          256   8,388,608
>   medium          10,000        5,000   8,000,000
>   large          100,000       50,000   8,000,000
> 
> Mean throughput in million lookups per second is:
> 
>   Baseline:
>                          key size (bytes)
>                       1        4        8       10
>     small         89.45    91.21   103.40    91.74
>     medium       125.97    80.25    91.94    78.52
>     large        140.67    53.56    58.68    47.31
> 
>   Optimized:
>                          key size (bytes)
>                       1        4        8       10
>     small         86.95   233.63   168.65    90.88
>     medium       124.97   150.20   137.76    77.51
>     large        131.06    80.51    76.04    47.25
> 
>   Change:
>                          key size (bytes)
>                       1        4        8       10
>     small         -2.79% +156.15%  +63.11%   -0.94%
>     medium        -0.79%  +87.17%  +49.83%   -1.28%
>     large         -6.84%  +50.32%  +29.58%   -0.12%
> 
> The u32 specialization improves lookup throughput by 50-156%, and the
> u64 specialization improves it by 30-63%. Ten-byte controls remain
> within a 1.3% slowdown. One-byte controls range from -6.8% to -0.8%.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>
> Acked-by: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Added variants of __htab_map_lookup_elem() functions with inlined
> u32/u64 key sizes, use them in htab_map_gen_lookup();
> improved lookup perf significantly (Alexei)
> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/20260921-hashtab_fast_hashfn-v1-1-f92ae72cefcd@meta.com
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> index 6f331c80130d..77c96105eda8 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/hashtab.c
> @@ -612,6 +612,13 @@ static struct bpf_map *htab_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
>  		htab->hashrnd = 0;
>  	else
>  		htab->hashrnd = get_random_u32();
> +	/*
> +	 * Fold the jhash constant and key length into hashrnd once for the
> +	 * fixed-size fast paths instead of doing it on every lookup.
> +	 */
> +	if (htab->map.key_size == sizeof(u32) ||
> +	    htab->map.key_size == sizeof(u64))
> +		htab->hashrnd += JHASH_INITVAL + htab->map.key_size;
>  
>  	htab_init_buckets(htab);
>  
> @@ -679,9 +686,19 @@ static struct bpf_map *htab_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
>  
>  static inline u32 htab_map_hash(const void *key, u32 key_len, u32 hashrnd)
>  {
> -	if (likely(key_len % 4 == 0))
> +	const u32 *k = key;
> +	u32 b;
> +
> +	if (key_len == sizeof(u32))
> +		b = 0;
> +	else if (key_len == sizeof(u64))
> +		b = k[1];
> +	else if (likely(key_len % 4 == 0))
>  		return jhash2(key, key_len / 4, hashrnd);
> -	return jhash(key, key_len, hashrnd);
> +	else
> +		return jhash(key, key_len, hashrnd);
> +
> +	return __jhash_nwords(k[0], b, 0, hashrnd);
>  
>  static inline struct bucket *__select_bucket(struct bpf_htab *htab, u32 hash)
> @@ -735,17 +752,15 @@ static struct htab_elem *lookup_nulls_elem_raw(struct hlist_nulls_head *head,
>   * The return value is adjusted by BPF instructions
>   * in htab_map_gen_lookup().
>   */
> -static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
> +static __always_inline void *__htab_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, void *key, u32 key_size)
>  {
>  	struct bpf_htab *htab = container_of(map, struct bpf_htab, map);
>  	struct hlist_nulls_head *head;
>  	struct htab_elem *l;
> -	u32 hash, key_size;
> +	u32 hash;
>  
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(!bpf_rcu_lock_held());
>  
> -	key_size = map->key_size;
> -
>  	hash = htab_map_hash(key, key_size, htab->hashrnd);
>  
>  	head = select_bucket(htab, hash);
> @@ -755,6 +770,21 @@ static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>  	return l;
>  }
>  
> +static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
> +{
> +	return __htab_lookup(map, key, map->key_size);
> +}
> +
> +static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem_u32(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
> +{
> +	return __htab_lookup(map, key, sizeof(u32));
> +}
> +
> +static void *__htab_map_lookup_elem_u64(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
> +{
> +	return __htab_lookup(map, key, sizeof(u64));
> +}
> +
>  static void *htab_map_lookup_elem(struct bpf_map *map, void *key)
>  {
>  	struct htab_elem *l = __htab_map_lookup_elem(map, key);
> @@ -783,7 +813,12 @@ static int htab_map_gen_lookup(struct bpf_map *map, struct bpf_insn *insn_buf)
>  
>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__same_type(&__htab_map_lookup_elem,
>  		     (void *(*)(struct bpf_map *map, void *key))NULL));
> -	*insn++ = BPF_EMIT_CALL(__htab_map_lookup_elem);
> +	if (map->key_size == sizeof(u32))
> +		*insn++ = BPF_EMIT_CALL(__htab_map_lookup_elem_u32);
> +	else if (map->key_size == sizeof(u64))
> +		*insn++ = BPF_EMIT_CALL(__htab_map_lookup_elem_u64);
> +	else
> +		*insn++ = BPF_EMIT_CALL(__htab_map_lookup_elem);

I am trying to remember why I didn't do this when I was touching this
code, I was definitely thinking about it... Given your changes,
it is worth to approach xxh3 again, it works way better for bigger key
sizes, see [1].

  [1] https://archive.fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/bpf_hashing/



>  	*insn++ = BPF_JMP_IMM(BPF_JEQ, ret, 0, 1);
>  	*insn++ = BPF_ALU64_IMM(BPF_ADD, ret,
>  				offsetof(struct htab_elem, key) +
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 6e1ac8758fcd07bee12ccaff0087cc66930a4187
> change-id: 20260916-hashtab_fast_hashfn-9e52b3c2276e
> 
> Best regards,
> --  
> Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-22  7:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-21 21:28 [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: Speed up htab lookups for u32/u64 keys Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-09-21 21:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-21 22:34 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-22  1:40 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-22 11:49   ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-09-22  7:31 ` Anton Protopopov [this message]
2026-09-22 11:45   ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-09-22 13:03     ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-22 15:57       ` Mykyta Yatsenko
2026-09-22 16:19         ` Anton Protopopov
2026-09-22 16:29           ` Alexei Starovoitov

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=arIu1SA3F66HhMkv@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=a.s.protopopov@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com \
    --cc=yatsenko@meta.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.