Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] Add sample for adding simple drop program to link

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>]

I'm testing with this program and these patches, after getting past the
challenge of compiling the samples/bpf files ;-)


On Fri,  1 Apr 2016 18:21:58 -0700 Brenden Blanco <bblanco@plumgrid.com> wrote:

> Add a sample program that only drops packets at the
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_PHYS_DEV hook of a link. With the drop-only program,
> observed single core rate is ~14.6Mpps.

On my i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz I'm seeing 9.7Mpps (single flow/cpu).
(generator: pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh)

 # ./netdrvx1 $(</sys/class/net/mlx4p1/ifindex)
 sh: /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/kprobe_events: No such file or directory
 Success: Loaded file ./netdrvx1_kern.o
 proto 17:    9776320 drops/s

These numbers are quite impressive. Compared to: sending it to local
socket that drop packets 1.7Mpps. Compared to: dropping with iptables
in "raw" table 3.7Mpps.

If I do multiple flows, via ./pktgen_sample05_flow_per_thread.sh
then I hit this strange 14.5Mpps limit (proto 17:   14505558 drops/s).
And the RX 4x CPUs are starting to NOT use 100% in softirq, they have
some cycles attributed to %idle. (I verified generator is sending at
24Mpps).


> Other tests were run, for instance without the dropcnt increment or
> without reading from the packet header, the packet rate was mostly
> unchanged.

If I change the program to not touch packet data (don't call
load_byte()) then the performance increase to 14.6Mpps (single
flow/cpu).  And the RX CPU is mostly idle... mlx4_en_process_rx_cq()
and page alloc/free functions taking the time.

> $ perf record -a samples/bpf/netdrvx1 $(</sys/class/net/eth0/ifindex)
> proto 17:   14597724 drops/s
> 
> ./pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh -i $DEV -d $IP -m $MAC -t 4
> Running... ctrl^C to stop
> Device: eth4@0
> Result: OK: 6486875(c6485849+d1026) usec, 23689465 (60byte,0frags)
>   3651906pps 1752Mb/sec (1752914880bps) errors: 0
> Device: eth4@1
> Result: OK: 6486874(c6485656+d1217) usec, 23689489 (60byte,0frags)
>   3651911pps 1752Mb/sec (1752917280bps) errors: 0
> Device: eth4@2
> Result: OK: 6486851(c6485730+d1120) usec, 23687853 (60byte,0frags)
>   3651672pps 1752Mb/sec (1752802560bps) errors: 0
> Device: eth4@3
> Result: OK: 6486879(c6485807+d1071) usec, 23688954 (60byte,0frags)
>   3651825pps 1752Mb/sec (1752876000bps) errors: 0
> 
> perf report --no-children:
>   18.36%  ksoftirqd/1    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_process_rx_cq
>   15.98%  swapper        [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] poll_idle
>   12.71%  ksoftirqd/1    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_alloc_frags
>    6.87%  ksoftirqd/1    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_free_frag
>    4.20%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] get_page_from_freelist
>    4.09%  swapper        [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_process_rx_cq
>    3.32%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] sk_load_byte_positive_offset
>    2.39%  ksoftirqd/1    [mdio]            [k] 0x00000000000074cd
>    2.23%  swapper        [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_alloc_frags
>    2.20%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] free_pages_prepare
>    2.08%  ksoftirqd/1    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_call_bpf
>    1.57%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] percpu_array_map_lookup_elem
>    1.35%  ksoftirqd/1    [mdio]            [k] 0x00000000000074fa
>    1.09%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] free_one_page
>    1.02%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] bpf_map_lookup_elem
>    0.90%  ksoftirqd/1    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
>    0.88%  swapper        [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] intel_idle
>    0.82%  ksoftirqd/1    [mdio]            [k] 0x00000000000074be
>    0.80%  swapper        [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_free_frag

My picture (single flow/cpu) looks a little bit different:

 +   64.33%  ksoftirqd/7    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] __bpf_prog_run
 +    9.60%  ksoftirqd/7    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_alloc_frags
 +    7.71%  ksoftirqd/7    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_process_rx_cq
 +    5.47%  ksoftirqd/7    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_en_free_frag
 +    1.68%  ksoftirqd/7    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] get_page_from_freelist
 +    1.52%  ksoftirqd/7    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_call_bpf
 +    1.02%  ksoftirqd/7    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] free_pages_prepare
 +    0.72%  ksoftirqd/7    [mlx4_en]         [k] mlx4_alloc_pages.isra.20
 +    0.70%  ksoftirqd/7    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] __rcu_read_unlock
 +    0.65%  ksoftirqd/7    [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] percpu_array_map_lookup_elem

On my i7-4790K CPU, I don't have DDIO, thus I assume this high cost in
__bpf_prog_run is due to a cache-miss on the packet data.

> machine specs:
>  receiver - Intel E5-1630 v3 @ 3.70GHz
>  sender - Intel E5645 @ 2.40GHz
>  Mellanox ConnectX-3 @40G

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer