Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 5/7] bpf: sockmap sample add base test without any BPF for comparison

[John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>]

On 01/11/2018 01:10 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:40:11AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> Add a base test that does not use BPF hooks to test baseline case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c b/samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c
>> index 812fc7e..eb19d14 100644
>> --- a/samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c
>> +++ b/samples/sockmap/sockmap_user.c
>> @@ -285,18 +285,24 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
>>  
>>  static float giga = 1000000000;
>>  
>> -static int sendmsg_test(int iov_count, int iov_buf, int cnt, int verbose)
>> +static int sendmsg_test(int iov_count, int iov_buf, int cnt,
>> +			int verbose, bool base)
>>  {
>> -	int txpid, rxpid, err = 0;
>> +	float sent_Bps = 0, recvd_Bps = 0;
>> +	int rx_fd, txpid, rxpid, err = 0;
>>  	struct msg_stats s = {0};
>>  	int status;
>> -	float sent_Bps = 0, recvd_Bps = 0;
>>  
>>  	errno = 0;
>>  
>> +	if (base)
>> +		rx_fd = p1;
>> +	else
>> +		rx_fd = p2;
>> +
>>  	rxpid = fork();
>>  	if (rxpid == 0) {
>> -		err = msg_loop(p2, iov_count, iov_buf, cnt, &s, false);
>> +		err = msg_loop(rx_fd, iov_count, iov_buf, cnt, &s, false);
> I am likely missing something.  After receiving from p1, should the
> base-line case also send to c2 which then will be received by p2?
> 

Well I wanted a test to check socket to socket rates and see what
max throughput we could get with this simple tool. It provides a
good reference point for any other 'perf' data, throughput numbers,
etc. The numbers I see here, probably as expected, are very close
to what I get with iperf tests.

Adding another test base_bounce or base_proxy or something along
those lines might be another test we can add. I think you were
expecting this to be a 1:1 comparison with the sendmsg BPF test
but its not. Probably can add it though.

Thanks,
John