From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj2-f12.google.com (mail-pj2-f12.google.com [74.125.227.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEA9C4E36D0 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 16:14:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.227.140 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790612058; cv=none; b=bME6dhlGmLC3Vluy0Odurfmq/aWLWLXaA0kiHSRPIJDjKDjOUxApe7yuIFLAqVnyU12roV0f2S4/uGyc70A2WX4W1hmz2Xm7gBI1qfylCAqMuLlVS3yynUWPQYiSgbVTP4pZ0Hgat5EY6aXiKYHwiqXAGm7hqP6BdjTZCF+G9Ms= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790612058; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0mNiBoZ+EjTYD7duzkXnrvojGRhNpWwj6eK4k43UdIg=; h=Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version; b=lkKIeAkhvZixpxMhncycwde9x8Wo3qDVWA9PRY2YBgbhElNYxKXgwfE4V7dC4MinRE9AsXeXT3zR7FbNs3yFTiMQHz6agz2MR0wRrfMESC9IPxmN1RmmehmOY7aCJBNjdj+x2hp/MNmgeUs0kepYUu4I44vzrVbhK2+V0ZxHlK0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=VVrbvnSu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.227.140 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="VVrbvnSu" Received: by mail-pj2-f12.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2d8fbef5018so22040155ad.0 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1790612047; x=1791216847; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to:cc:to :from:subject:message-id:date:content-type:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=0mNiBoZ+EjTYD7duzkXnrvojGRhNpWwj6eK4k43UdIg=; b=VVrbvnSuaJz2ZwHKMfTDbeWKgGXlU+SRNnvIJADJjM5ZCLiBQUYVygyAhCJbAqdWSV vuomXrcTbVzHgRzEAWTIoP3CFv30oTmNyVkjT7oTsLd13PlpzPqIvKYymFB+NrD7UqEM AM3oHV5JBdB0jWQRZE/DcfrTBlSb6otB5azjhbORu1ncBEMfjiIsmepG4nS7e/WXNsf9 r9zSmzrVlIFU3aqLgnd3ox49iyY3K061EvfEFpYc8FO2JIKJfeMsiP7c2Y+NDsDH63ih G/9WlONkPQsbWSvgGo03OIc0AXlqu2bhDmRyV1l9Qwmo+G0Ta0cal3qQpR/B9oJqEhhN quuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790612047; x=1791216847; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to:cc:to :from:subject:message-id:date:content-type:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=0mNiBoZ+EjTYD7duzkXnrvojGRhNpWwj6eK4k43UdIg=; b=iy5xe8JtCa5CK2GB7TGnGt9o6eHpsq/VL9t4YYVdJ8b/kNyT0RaNczrc1LRoSmcog9 CAy/8oDrS7ITH6AxZntTnaoYeRrJ9cfxykTTq0jkcYOS1TWSKhugTJTfuCpVHQIM81S0 PBJ+e1J+q3oTrLab2DXUj9qo7wbIg052Ts5VeSMp85tACyiFDwEVnIign8PNw0Orhmn+ smL13ZVOxlTmwV8E/7nIdI9Xn+9xDyvJI2N/46fyCjVNYJaahE/mMZ90nHZldzSkNjAO twHrmKXJaYof/8aPRz11uiep0Enw+Zv6E3UGEEsdXFJqz1dH3pzdpwnBftQodBqzXkoF f7BQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBwCMLe/23CgYJH0xqlZUTP57Grvq25OkSAJso/56Rxm8mg8VArGPAIXhITi9cH2KvTkSv8=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYIbjXXeusN3jn+oSqz3wSchwrLn9ht6mdTk7Zh2o8P9qyoXZIkb Q+8PQEB2R4uJSnFSQOg8091ZLNuHdi4roIidmcd5s8a2r3kJ96Kgbz1f X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou3pMaj3tKt2/VOZjJPdog0OBwPa8TmV/kaJxfkRIuZPr3nMRoNUbEkkVUcfDwj Mi5tH44KzK4RrO3xag238NFJzlYNopXQ1X1YAbnCavgVNxJkTGVbqigkd6xc2+1gPllg/WuSdHF EqSYxpoFXU+pZeUv0B+Ys+J4yov+Y63dqGdZrABX4ZaWCHulIskcd2egt0JVgjlp6uw0OqEqm20 fy18M4O2H+jU6kMbgGFa8y7flLrULTp+iv+pCTkdiNxg7oeplSROOR7bEAeprck+8k7MqdUHmO4 hV+sYQVd+LbKwWXDhrzgxK0OehoMzkLb597ZcAydOyTY6b9Ldd11o/PaTUjg5VRcFJJkn6SVAys ulw1KFDkVEopqNC/xaR1JGAjP3glhCkNY6JYzNOGp+G6V80UvwnYNPumgcDXMySNDt7irSNPgZY HE2ctsVsTbdwdP3AHSXkEqSMMxDzitF7oYcpxmP8ep0kkJK5qmFC/lZzi06408N3DWpSgIQfVVS b4mofPfSgd193p01zl+S3ChfWmhbkUPSStlW44MIor/HNZwOlaJ+CrUBA7zxzf0XmCITwupPzdb yhU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ef4c:b0:2dd:ad74:ac20 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2df7dea7d02mr104273185ad.27.1790612046704; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([153.61.198.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-2df913dfea3sm43852325ad.14.2026.09.28.09.14.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 16:14:04 +0000 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 03/14] bpf: Make BPF skb extension survive packet scrubbing From: "Alexei Starovoitov" To: "Jakub Sitnicki" Cc: "Jakub Kicinski" , "Daniel Zahka" , , "Kuniyuki Iwashima" , "Paolo Abeni" , "Stanislav Fomichev" , , , "Daniel Borkmann" , "John Fastabend" , "Andrii Nakryiko" , "Eduard Zingerman" , "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" , "Martin KaFai Lau" , "Song Liu" , "Yonghong Song" , "Jiri Olsa" , "Emil Tsalapatis" , "David S. Miller" , "Eric Dumazet" , "Simon Horman" , "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" , "Willem de Bruijn" , "Florian Westphal" , "Jack Wang" <163wangjack@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87jyo5bcgs.fsf@cloudflare.com> References: <20260910-bpf-meta-inside-skb-ext-v2-0-0b21e42180b0@cloudflare.com> <20260910-bpf-meta-inside-skb-ext-v2-3-0b21e42180b0@cloudflare.com> <87fqyypp67.fsf@cloudflare.com> <20260925121849.2ac5150b@kernel.org> <20260925132004.171b751e@kernel.org> <87jyo5bcgs.fsf@cloudflare.com> X-Mailer: mkdraft (claude review draft; edit before sending) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 05:52 PM Jakub Sitnicki wrote: > The correct results - as in reproducible and with lower variance - are > the other way around - BPF skb ext is cheaper CPU-wise than gated skb > tracepoints. Please see: > > https://patch.msgid.link/20260928-bpf-meta-gated-tracepoints-v1-0-844dbf3e1edf@cloudflare.com I don't think these numbers measure the mechanism either. cpustats.py divides busy by ncpus, so +16.4 and +6.6 are the mean over 6 cpus, while 146k pps is the total of 3 flows. So it's 6.7 usec vs 2.7 usec per packet and not 1125 ns vs 450 ns. That's a lot for one kmem_cache_alloc/free and a 16 byte copy. Pls share perf report for both and rerun.