[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b63fae4b-cb74-1928-b210-80914f3c8995@fb.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 19:11:51 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To: Shubham Bansal <illusionist.neo@...il.com>
CC: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] arm: eBPF JIT compiler
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!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists