From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-174.mta1.migadu.com (out-174.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 674BD182B9 for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 18:01:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716400896; cv=none; b=KklBvxdB2T1p4IDBTpMTxwPz70sGHUFfJOxpbmk8tC21z8fiWXYuSwReEH7GS4EpGFiPdttJC2PNjgx+8Ssp07HrRTia/iQ0Hy1U5QW11lexsjWU8Zz1GXvgyUJEn8Q2ALh1F4ImKNrOlfJ/hZdkJ8hJlGJXVLNICik4xudmnVY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716400896; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HaW0PFejcjOvHmrD+n74gNDYOqCmr9nv/hPOJT49zlI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=sovGM2uMdnb3vl6EybxtAY5d2uuH3lDFh7N2j0JKE//7l/HPr/NB+IQj09wI/VgRZZwIOsBm4b2H8mv4rLWhhxI8ElbsCiXrSOy6lfuDgSHtHOVWBF3JoJl7PJEQ+phDSF2pLM/Pv1t4+K8th9CZnsQd2CSR2lwfJdQb7kbrZ24= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=fBaRwL0A; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="fBaRwL0A" X-Envelope-To: vadfed@meta.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1716400891; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RFlEvrz1cbXdg8otjcI241uzPwHW3ZjVKnR69shb81I=; b=fBaRwL0Aky2gocNVsq4b5wNK0ZQzMEZujX+zjYbi68Y7zbXWmont2/dXMgMGq2DO8/mKRe gQtnfpzDDIyEvXSHJ86UFU6bYegOXk2/oh1CCXN3i9lpFcdxY2KNu5P0fepa23td9BPRBh HlwwSy914G+pwFqcXwT3NrbkOG4Xzuk= X-Envelope-To: eddyz87@gmail.com X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org X-Envelope-To: vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev X-Envelope-To: andrii@kernel.org X-Envelope-To: ast@kernel.org X-Envelope-To: mykolal@fb.com X-Envelope-To: kuba@kernel.org Message-ID: <73add1b3-b1e4-4d83-85b3-5be45f2658d6@linux.dev> Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 11:01:23 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] selftests: bpf: crypto: adjust bench to use nullable IV To: Vadim Fedorenko , Eduard Zingerman Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Vadim Fedorenko , Andrii Nakryiko , Alexei Starovoitov , Mykola Lysenko , Jakub Kicinski References: <20240510122823.1530682-1-vadfed@meta.com> <20240510122823.1530682-5-vadfed@meta.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau In-Reply-To: <20240510122823.1530682-5-vadfed@meta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 5/10/24 5:28 AM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote: > The bench shows some improvements, around 4% faster on decrypt. The original intention is to make the crypto kfunc more ergonomic to use such that the bpf prog does not have to initialize a zero length dynptr for the optional dynptr argument. This performance boost is a decent surprise considering the crypto operation should be pretty heavy. (thanks for having the crypto benchmark handy). Do you have a chance to get a perf record to confirm where the cycles is saved? Why it only helps decrypt? Inlining it would be nice (as Eduard mentioned in another thread). I also wonder if Eduard's work on the no caller saved registers could help the dynptr kfunc? I think the dynptr kfunc optimization could be a followup. > > Before: > > Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started. > Iter 0 (325.719us): hits 5.105M/s ( 5.105M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.105M/s > Iter 1 (-17.295us): hits 5.224M/s ( 5.224M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.224M/s > Iter 2 ( 5.504us): hits 4.630M/s ( 4.630M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 4.630M/s > Iter 3 ( 9.239us): hits 5.148M/s ( 5.148M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.148M/s > Iter 4 ( 37.885us): hits 5.198M/s ( 5.198M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.198M/s > Iter 5 (-53.282us): hits 5.167M/s ( 5.167M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.167M/s > Iter 6 (-17.809us): hits 5.186M/s ( 5.186M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.186M/s > Summary: hits 5.092 ± 0.228M/s ( 5.092M/prod), drops 0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations 5.092 ± 0.228M/s > > After: > > Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started. > Iter 0 (268.912us): hits 5.312M/s ( 5.312M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.312M/s > Iter 1 (124.869us): hits 5.354M/s ( 5.354M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.354M/s > Iter 2 (-36.801us): hits 5.334M/s ( 5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.334M/s > Iter 3 (254.628us): hits 5.334M/s ( 5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.334M/s > Iter 4 (-77.691us): hits 5.275M/s ( 5.275M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.275M/s > Iter 5 (-164.510us): hits 5.313M/s ( 5.313M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.313M/s > Iter 6 (-81.376us): hits 5.346M/s ( 5.346M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations 5.346M/s > Summary: hits 5.326 ± 0.029M/s ( 5.326M/prod), drops 0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations 5.326 ± 0.029M/s > > Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c | 10 ++++------ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c > index e61fe0882293..4ac956b26240 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c > @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb) > { > struct __crypto_ctx_value *v; > struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx; > - struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv; > + struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst; > > v = crypto_ctx_value_lookup(); > if (!v) { > @@ -73,9 +73,8 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb) > > bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc); > bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst); > - bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv); > > - status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv); > + status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL); > __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1); > > return 0; > @@ -84,7 +83,7 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb) > SEC("tc") > int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb) > { > - struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv; > + struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst; > struct __crypto_ctx_value *v; > struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx; > > @@ -98,9 +97,8 @@ int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb) > > bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc); > bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst); > - bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv); > > - status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv); > + status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL); > __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1); > > return 0;