linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/3] bpf: hash: use per-bucket spinlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1451122294-16524-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:31:31 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: hash: use per-bucket spinlock

Hi,

This patchset tries to optimize ebpf hash map, and follows
the idea:

	Both htab_map_update_elem() and htab_map_delete_elem()
	can be called from eBPF program, and they may be in kernel
	hot path, it isn't efficient to use a per-hashtable lock
	in this two helpers, so this patch converts the lock into
	per-bucket spinlock.

With this patchset, looks the performance penalty from eBPF
decreased a lot, see the following test:

	1) run 'tools/biolatency' of bcc before running block test;

	2) run fio to test block throught over /dev/nullb0,
	(randread, 16jobs, libaio, 4k bs) and the test box
	is one 24cores(dual sockets) VM server:
        - without patchset:  607K IOPS
        - with this patchset: 1184K IOPS
        - without running eBPF prog: 1492K IOPS

TODO:
	- remove the per-hashtable atomic counter 

 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

thanks,
Ming

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/