From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@gmail.com>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com>,
ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, davem@davemloft.net,
hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org,
kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
kpsingh@kernel.org, lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
gal@nvidia.com, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
tariqt@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] samples/bpf: fixup some tools to be able to support xdp multibuffer
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 18:54:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k01zzgyq.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v8lkzlch.fsf@toke.dk>
>>> So my main concern would be that if we "allow" this, the only way to
>>> write an interoperable XDP program will be to use bpf_xdp_load_bytes()
>>> for every packet access. Which will be slower than DPA, so we may end up
>>> inadvertently slowing down all of the XDP ecosystem, because no one is
>>> going to bother with writing two versions of their programs. Whereas if
>>> you can rely on packet headers always being in the linear part, you can
>>> write a lot of the "look at headers and make a decision" type programs
>>> using just DPA, and they'll work for multibuf as well.
>>
>> The question I would have is what is really the 'slow down' for
>> bpf_xdp_load_bytes() vs DPA? I know you and Jesper can tell me how many
>> instructions each use. :)
>
> I can try running some benchmarks to compare the two, sure!
Okay, ran a simple test: a program that just parses the IP header, then
drops the packet. Results as follows:
Baseline (don't touch data): 26.5 Mpps / 37.8 ns/pkt
Touch data (ethernet hdr): 25.0 Mpps / 40.0 ns/pkt
Parse IP (DPA): 24.1 Mpps / 41.5 ns/pkt
Parse IP (bpf_xdp_load_bytes): 15.3 Mpps / 65.3 ns/pkt
So 2.2 ns of overhead from reading the packet data, another 1.5 ns from
the parsing logic, and a whopping 23.8 ns extra from switching to
bpf_xdp_load_bytes(). This is with two calls to bpf_xdp_load_bytes(),
one to get the Ethernet header, and another to get the IP header.
Dropping one of them also drops the overhead in half, so it seems to fit
with ~12 ns of overhead from a single call to bpf_xdp_load_bytes().
I pushed the code I used for testing here, in case someone else wants to
play around with it:
https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/tree/xdp-load-bytes
It's part of the 'xdp-bench' utility. Run it as:
./xdp-bench drop <iface> -p parse-ip
for DPA parsing and
./xdp-bench drop <iface> -p parse-ip -l
to use bpf_xdp_load_bytes().
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-06 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-21 17:54 [PATCH net-next v2] samples/bpf: fixup some tools to be able to support xdp multibuffer Andy Gospodarek
2022-06-22 2:00 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
2023-01-03 12:55 ` Tariq Toukan
2023-01-03 15:19 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2023-01-04 1:21 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-01-04 8:44 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2023-01-04 12:28 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2023-01-05 1:17 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-01-05 7:20 ` Tariq Toukan
2023-01-05 15:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2023-01-05 16:57 ` Andy Gospodarek
2023-01-05 18:16 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-01-06 13:56 ` Andy Gospodarek
2023-01-08 12:33 ` Tariq Toukan
[not found] ` <8369e348-a8ec-cb10-f91f-4277e5041a27@nvidia.com>
2023-01-08 12:42 ` Tariq Toukan
2023-01-09 13:50 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2023-01-05 22:07 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2023-01-06 17:54 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2023-01-05 16:22 ` Andy Gospodarek
2023-01-10 20:59 ` Maxim Mikityanskiy
2023-01-13 21:07 ` Tariq Toukan
2023-01-25 12:49 ` Tariq Toukan
2023-01-05 16:18 ` Andy Gospodarek
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=87k01zzgyq.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gal@nvidia.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
--cc=ttoukan.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox