[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <041465f0-0fd3-fd39-0dac-8093a1c98c00@bytedance.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 19:17:48 +0800
From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xiongchun Duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftest/bpf/benchs: Add bpf_map benchmark
在 2022/6/1 下午5:53, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:42 AM Feng zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com> wrote:
>> +struct {
>> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
>> + __type(key, u32);
>> + __type(value, u64);
>> + __uint(max_entries, MAX_ENTRIES);
>> +} hash_map_bench SEC(".maps");
>> +
>> +u64 __attribute__((__aligned__(256))) percpu_time[256];
> aligned 256 ?
> What is the point?
I didn't think too much about it here, just referenced it from
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bloom_filter_bench.c
>
>> +u64 nr_loops;
>> +
>> +static int loop_update_callback(__u32 index, u32 *key)
>> +{
>> + u64 init_val = 1;
>> +
>> + bpf_map_update_elem(&hash_map_bench, key, &init_val, BPF_ANY);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
>> +int benchmark(void *ctx)
>> +{
>> + u32 key = bpf_get_prandom_u32() % MAX_ENTRIES + MAX_ENTRIES;
> What is the point of random ?
> just key = MAX_ENTRIES would be the same, no?
> or key = -1 ?
If all threads on different cpu trigger sys_getpgid and lookup the same
key, it will cause
"ret = htab_lock_bucket(htab, b, hash, &flags); "
the lock competition here is fierce, and unnecessary overhead is
introduced,
and I don't want it to interfere with the test.
>
>> + u32 cpu = bpf_get_smp_processor_id();
>> + u64 start_time = bpf_ktime_get_ns();
>> +
>> + bpf_loop(nr_loops, loop_update_callback, &key, 0);
>> + percpu_time[cpu & 255] = bpf_ktime_get_ns() - start_time;
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists