From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj2-f13.google.com (mail-pj2-f13.google.com [74.125.227.141]) (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 346FB4EB87E for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 16:14:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.227.141 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790612053; cv=none; b=TOYB52WvZWLc9NNzLK6VY+6aRvFjtP5NOOJI5mNx80kP4uRdY3dfQttxqC+fCZWNkfdFmEidhXQSJaEBwQYp5aQp/RoYGmX9s5qj7rsFaBmxYw2vkWCeCBs/6q1tLZoSj7pbxNw3pH1oczAa8Fe6SgvcltOPnVKplv2Cv2S5aWc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790612053; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0mNiBoZ+EjTYD7duzkXnrvojGRhNpWwj6eK4k43UdIg=; h=Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version; b=nxOaHo2gjgbCNnZeyAXBqKUf665Hpgyksddt0FdYZPa5t3hl1dvcO5BXUYunp9LXjWakZoQbRH4DC+6ilUnpAmxPbtiNvIQ0ESxEdRhI5e2JCasoXU1m1PfLFVnC0/bvBuPgEJhiu9O3DpcpAl5BRi6+7u76zzuZ1miqTo5gLfg= 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=74.125.227.141 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-f13.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2d93ff61046so16885555ad.3 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:14:09 -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=susqSVk0yeGIksfwTVU5H0Ue4rNsQ/HqVyvwfAvgygyymCGnI7MAuPhxYoeDluHdzL txi5tXBzt3UCE6wN9Qbx/AiPny5UE7DAPSjbn90ck/BsMi/E0sxPEIqdkUVj6JIcz7zq +Zb3PuntAaD+GGLP/jbd/vFJEAJgZ82m92sVwSIkAGsl6/n2F29ERvJd8jpuAmGATzHt Fw0mYo+6WrYfMUpilCOdQtMve3ib0N8qvqACVDhTLVZETPYwMJGNW/eYl8TlbADEGFEt 20Zqn/vhr+XeDQP/VxhXtie5CitYEWOdFme8R0LICl5ETfS3rdSddf+gaL1pLsEq3tqr rCzw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBwH43tHM58v+5MNzlwoBJgX3nVCDUSkE2Ch7q5GOd54JZuM0wsMNiqtxFeDho1lrSSLMrFysqE=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYJyq5c6VH/b441Ri3Bty0Q4kDfgkGqLb1GF2KGYyU+PLND/5hdN 2iMV+BKCwyYqeangwg1+VxR+u6Yta8Nso9LShxOO76u0mwXIeCWVmOZD X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0UALISMgdltPilGE7NELhqQm7TQAoynGYEmvVADKv0b/M/RctMI3vhHJ7s45p hnLucwZS7xdQqnuRmjSk/QWC+OYyeZ3z72KodJEjpzyyzVMX0hn/msZ/B9Jme2/MG8RIGGofMkt f/CcUeyWi+EmUgUqBYXJ1H1YGacvWVv1LICQYsHu4YFXgU8ZkvRaxpExN2jZ0XBt7GiJ1mvtWYF JyiicVXe6qKkgdTaRHg/Z4lnWQ6MuCjCUJqDG2hvqas+i6mwr9oU2X4zEjL6RetAwwp9zEFGiBD PQ8c2eDjN6p5bi5hHqaABpL70gdG+rBi0MiSAbSDRksG4vya13y/0qRuonLjj6rlspbB6PQi1Bn iZBwQ6P6Ku/vvzOcRhf+eWjSNftZR45KoYTZz5qULAbJP2Wgmecqmxkx9Ib5p1qzo2goWvy9R5p +xwhsSK+lY9HcHdL0eeyfCjYzVLhYHaTbo+gH6uHxPa4x1SsLPA6x7c1mTqrsUedYhMn28/HoeG jRhQ3jH2+cSkUo7mWEK/agTrGsNy/CpHQkiG0DXxA1S3VSnmRHq0LE2MFsENEE0xtC/ghNqlTT1 WRE= 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: netdev@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.