From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@linux.dev,
kernel-team@fb.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, memxor@gmail.com,
awerner32@gmail.com, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf v2 03/11] selftests/bpf: fix bpf_loop_bench for new callback verification scheme
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2023 03:33:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231118013355.7943-4-eddyz87@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231118013355.7943-1-eddyz87@gmail.com>
This is a preparatory change. A follow-up patch "bpf: verify callbacks
as if they are called unknown number of times" changes logic for
callbacks handling. While previously callbacks were verified as a
single function call, new scheme takes into account that callbacks
could be executed unknown number of times.
This has dire implications for bpf_loop_bench:
SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
int benchmark(void *ctx)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
bpf_loop(nr_loops, empty_callback, NULL, 0);
__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, nr_loops);
}
return 0;
}
W/o callbacks change verifier sees it as a 1000 calls to
empty_callback(). However, with callbacks change things become
exponential:
- i=0: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=0 (a);
- i=1: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=1;
...
- i=999: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=999;
- state (a) is popped from stack;
- i=1: state exploring empty_callback is scheduled with i=1;
...
Avoid this issue by rewriting outer loop as bpf_loop().
Unfortunately, this adds a function call to a loop at runtime, which
negatively affects performance:
throughput latency
before: 149.919 ± 0.168 M ops/s, 6.670 ns/op
after : 137.040 ± 0.187 M ops/s, 7.297 ns/op
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c
index 4ce76eb064c4..d461746fd3c1 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_loop_bench.c
@@ -15,13 +15,16 @@ static int empty_callback(__u32 index, void *data)
return 0;
}
+static int outer_loop(__u32 index, void *data)
+{
+ bpf_loop(nr_loops, empty_callback, NULL, 0);
+ __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, nr_loops);
+ return 0;
+}
+
SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
int benchmark(void *ctx)
{
- for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
- bpf_loop(nr_loops, empty_callback, NULL, 0);
-
- __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, nr_loops);
- }
+ bpf_loop(1000, outer_loop, NULL, 0);
return 0;
}
--
2.42.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-18 1:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-18 1:33 [PATCH bpf v2 00/11] verify callbacks as if they are called unknown number of times Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 01/11] selftests/bpf: track tcp payload offset as scalar in xdp_synproxy Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 02/11] selftests/bpf: track string payload offset as scalar in strobemeta Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 04/11] bpf: extract __check_reg_arg() utility function Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 05/11] bpf: extract setup_func_entry() " Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 06/11] bpf: verify callbacks as if they are called unknown number of times Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-20 1:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-11-20 1:46 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 07/11] selftests/bpf: tests for iterating callbacks Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 08/11] bpf: widening for callback iterators Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 09/11] selftests/bpf: test widening for iterating callbacks Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 10/11] bpf: keep track of max number of bpf_loop callback iterations Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-20 2:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-11-20 2:06 ` Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-20 2:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-11-18 1:33 ` [PATCH bpf v2 11/11] selftests/bpf: check if max number of bpf_loop iterations is tracked Eduard Zingerman
2023-11-20 2:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-11-20 2:23 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=20231118013355.7943-4-eddyz87@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=awerner32@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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