[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+imsK-reGBiSzY02e+KdyGYZxm1su7T1bWvti=YmSV-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:16:25 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] bpf: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF code
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 4:02 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > modprobe test_bpf
> > > selftests/bpf/test_progs
> > > both print runtime.
> > > Some of test_progs have high run-to-run variations though.
> >
> > Thanks, I'll give it a shot.
>
> I modprobed test_bpf with JIT disabled.
>
> Before: 2.493018s
> After: 2.523572s
>
> So it looks like it's either no change, or slightly slower.
total time is hard to compare.
Could you compare few tests?
like two that are called "tcpdump *"
I think small regression is ok.
Folks that care about performance should be using JIT.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists