From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFE9C77B7C for ; Fri, 26 May 2023 06:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242314AbjEZGvE (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2023 02:51:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44436 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236280AbjEZGvC (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2023 02:51:02 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 181C2BC; Thu, 25 May 2023 23:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2537a79b9acso420824a91.3; Thu, 25 May 2023 23:51:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685083860; x=1687675860; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:references :in-reply-to:message-id:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=lGACEaIrD4zSU2aeog6vBy9O4EkGvsfRbD7VCzWE690=; b=QquRqePAsyWnNBwrIyycy3XucFj/jFX/3GNN6UTB+K06ZMnraSlxYSIsUJqKy5XMUd J5hOsxE7YqPwO/xalKKueQzNJuGql8Dnq0oTSb5kpGDmzLN50pDNm8spjEBA39Rb4tV6 JysGZTJZGJLKv1k83I5Z2XD6Mp8pmbkBeYdOd6/cqm/YK+ZCD9B4BBFfo/41ud7N66Bu Py5RuCd9N/g4jlFQlHmQrdMX2ROZx7oJSjagyDR919/H/oAnOriRT9RwDoGIBOW6aarB iHQxxWIbd21jAePa+Fjsn1j6IfFK+31c77Bo/ViYDVBnwAQcOGQPVMXe/kp32aJJESla OrHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685083860; x=1687675860; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:references :in-reply-to:message-id:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lGACEaIrD4zSU2aeog6vBy9O4EkGvsfRbD7VCzWE690=; b=cF6qhKmm/odQAjhq/QyjVBMgZUh27y7xt5JJ4v1DekToF4pC9BDSxiG2Jo+o+R9IdN gbrepgE5UV/mtkYnwcBmb6nK2XnOwHJbi8E+fmVjhQ0tu1M40VsjvoOQJFNEdxzhZ5LF C962txf+gYWxUalsfluvz5Fd4Ge4WtwFlblI4XV0L9f/zH0rldqXhNl5kT+H6W2Rv+u1 UlcQJlFCx+ZADhb5GfUny7FX7oVwISebgq3KSTPObLeS2rTIpL7hh5GGy4AlHSD8HYxm aCD39wQaq5aDo/L62AOQ3DNk6zO9aCEEXtDafTVep2orHfc758z0lIxidoAPkLnqaZI5 aE6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxJ7jH0xsMl0rmrimh8mI1qgaqA4jzWLuQh/W/8YZMRwWif/L9q dh57CGoyy/u2wr/JdJ1HdKc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4DEG7JENscgMVffBweyP9OhNGu3BglBG5gmEAogCCfXi1Wr8JvIrH889GSyjko8GKa8lgjYA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7106:b0:255:dd84:8643 with SMTP id h6-20020a17090a710600b00255dd848643mr1810477pjk.8.1685083860490; Thu, 25 May 2023 23:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2605:59c8:148:ba10:17de:b2c5:b0ad:62a7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o2-20020a17090a3d4200b0024e227828a9sm4259536pjf.24.2023.05.25.23.50.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 May 2023 23:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 23:50:58 -0700 From: John Fastabend To: kongweibin , daniel@iogearbox.net Cc: andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, hsinweih@uci.edu, jakub@cloudflare.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liuxin350@huawei.com, yanan@huawei.com, wuchangye@huawei.com, xiesongyang@huawei.com, kongweibin2@huawei.com, zhangmingyi5@huawei.com Message-ID: <647056d28d59a_2023020887@john.notmuch> In-Reply-To: <20230525143814.361127-1-kongweibin2@huawei.com> References: <20230525143814.361127-1-kongweibin2@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [bpf?] [net?] Questions about the impact of ebpf sockmap/redirection on socket performance improvement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org kongweibin wrote: > I'm using ebpf sockmap/redirection to bypass the TCP/IP stack to improve > socket communication performance (throughput, latency) between different > PODs on the same machine. As concurrent connections or payloads increase, > there may be unconspicuous performance improvement or even performance > degradation compared to the TCP/IP stack. I have retrieved some performance > data, but it does not seem to involve high concurrency and high payloads, > I would like to know if community have conducted relevant tests on these > scenarios and have any opinions on the poor performance improvement in these > scenarios. Not fully following above, what is your performance test/tools and what were the numbers?