From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>
To: Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] arm: eBPF JIT compiler
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 19:11:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b63fae4b-cb74-1928-b210-80914f3c8995@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHgaXdJDOseZk0=4uCGeCx44kgnvHf1gnh7CX2c6dTzXb8Rk+g@mail.gmail.com>
On 8/19/17 2:46 PM, Shubham Bansal wrote:
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv4 271 nsec
> test_pkt_access:PASS:ipv6 297 nsec
> test_xdp:PASS:ipv4 961517 nsec <--- Here is the difference.
> test_xdp:PASS:ipv6 615855 nsec <--- Here is the difference.
yes. this is expected. These two numbers are single run
on cold cache, so there will be run-to-run variation.
> test_l4lb:PASS:ipv4 3049 nsec
> test_l4lb:PASS:ipv6 3906 nsec
These two and the first two were the ones I was interested in,
since they do many iterations over the same set and
the best to compare code gen changes.
The delta % is actually better than I expected judging by test_bpf
micro-benchmarks, so the results are very encouraging.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-20 2:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-19 9:20 [PATCH net-next v3] arm: eBPF JIT compiler Shubham Bansal
2017-08-19 19:04 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-08-19 19:59 ` Shubham Bansal
2017-08-19 20:02 ` Shubham Bansal
2017-08-19 20:48 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-08-19 21:28 ` Shubham Bansal
2017-08-19 21:46 ` Shubham Bansal
2017-08-20 2:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2017-08-20 16:12 ` Shubham Bansal
2017-08-20 22:12 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-08-20 22:16 ` Shubham Bansal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b63fae4b-cb74-1928-b210-80914f3c8995@fb.com \
--to=ast@fb.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=illusionist.neo@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox