linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 14/15 v2] net: Reference bpf_redirect_info via task_struct on PREEMPT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20240510162214.zNWRKgFU@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 18:22:14 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 14/15 v2] net: Reference bpf_redirect_info via
 task_struct on PREEMPT_RT.

On 2024-05-10 18:21:24 [+0200], To Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> The XDP redirect process is two staged:
…
On 2024-05-07 15:27:44 [+0200], Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> I need/want to echo Toke's request to benchmark these changes.

I have:
boxA: ixgbe
boxB: i40e

Both are bigger NUMA boxes. I have to patch ixgbe to ignore the 64CPU
limit and I boot box with only 64CPUs. The IOMMU has been disabled on
both box as well as CPU mitigations. The link is 10G.

The base for testing I have is commit a17ef9e6c2c1c ("net_sched:
sch_sfq: annotate data-races around q->perturb_period") which I used to
rebase my series on top of.

pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh has been used to send packets and
"xdp-bench drop $nic -e" to receive them.

baseline
~~~~~~~~
boxB -> boxA | gov performance
-t2 (to pktgen)
| receive total 14,854,233 pkt/s        14,854,233 drop/s                0 error/s      

-t1 (to pktgen)
| receive total 10,642,895 pkt/s        10,642,895 drop/s                0 error/s      


boxB -> boxA | gov powersave
-t2 (to pktgen)
  receive total 10,196,085 pkt/s        10,196,085 drop/s                0 error/s      
  receive total 10,187,254 pkt/s        10,187,254 drop/s                0 error/s      
  receive total 10,553,298 pkt/s        10,553,298 drop/s                0 error/s

-t1
  receive total 10,427,732 pkt/s        10,427,732 drop/s                0 error/s      

======
boxA -> boxB (-t1) gov performance
performace:
  receive total 13,171,962 pkt/s        13,171,962 drop/s                0 error/s      
  receive total 13,368,344 pkt/s        13,368,344 drop/s                0 error/s

powersave:
  receive total 13,343,136 pkt/s        13,343,136 drop/s                0 error/s      
  receive total 13,220,326 pkt/s        13,220,326 drop/s                0 error/s      

(I the CPU governor had no impact, just noise)

The series applied (with updated 14/15)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
boxB -> boxA | gov performance
-t2:
  receive total  14,880,199 pkt/s        14,880,199 drop/s                0 error/s

-t1:
  receive total  10,769,082 pkt/s        10,769,082 drop/s                0 error/s      

boxB -> boxA | gov powersave
-t2:
 receive total   11,163,323 pkt/s        11,163,323 drop/s                0 error/s      

-t1:
 receive total   10,756,515 pkt/s        10,756,515 drop/s                0 error/s      

boxA -> boxB | gov perfomance

 receive total  13,395,919 pkt/s        13,395,919 drop/s                0 error/s      

boxA -> boxB | gov perfomance
 receive total  13,290,527 pkt/s        13,290,527 drop/s                0 error/s


Based on my numbers, there is just noise.  BoxA hit the CPU limit during
receive while lowering the CPU-freq. BoxB seems to be unaffected by
lowing CPU frequency during receive.

I can't comment on anything >10G due to HW limits.

Sebastian