From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] arm: eBPF JIT compiler Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 19:11:51 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1503134429-29063-1-git-send-email-illusionist.neo@gmail.com> <9d77730f-c6a8-b337-599e-5919207a7e0a@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Lunn , Kees Cook , Daniel Borkmann , Network Development , LKML , Russell King - ARM Linux , David Miller , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org To: Shubham Bansal Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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!