| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzb65VnL5nESxkGGZCgW0Ow+apwTsqzpFv2s+rd3Y6YkAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:15:38 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>, Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...il.com>,
Tao Chen <chen.dylane@...ux.dev>, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@...wdstrike.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/3] selftests/bpf/benchs: Add producer and
overwrite bench for ring buffer
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:13 AM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>
> Add rb-prod test for bpf ring buffer to bench producer performance
> without counsumer thread. And add --rb-overwrite option to bench
> ring buffer in overwrite mode.
>
> For reference, below are bench numbers collected from x86_64 and
> arm64 CPUs.
>
> - AMD EPYC 9654 (x86_64)
>
> Ringbuf, overwrite mode with multi-producer contention, no consumer
> ===================================================================
> rb-prod nr_prod 1 32.295 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 2 9.591 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 3 8.895 ± 0.002M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 4 9.206 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 8 9.220 ± 0.002M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 12 4.595 ± 0.022M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 16 4.348 ± 0.016M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 20 3.957 ± 0.017M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 24 3.787 ± 0.014M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 28 3.603 ± 0.011M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 32 3.707 ± 0.011M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 36 3.562 ± 0.012M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 40 3.616 ± 0.012M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 44 3.598 ± 0.016M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 48 3.555 ± 0.014M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 52 3.463 ± 0.020M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
>
> - HiSilicon Kunpeng 920 (arm64)
>
> Ringbuf, overwrite mode with multi-producer contention, no consumer
> ===================================================================
> rb-prod nr_prod 1 14.687 ± 0.058M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 2 22.263 ± 0.007M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 3 5.736 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 4 4.934 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 8 4.661 ± 0.001M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 12 3.753 ± 0.013M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 16 3.706 ± 0.018M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 20 3.660 ± 0.015M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 24 3.610 ± 0.016M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 28 3.238 ± 0.010M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 32 3.270 ± 0.018M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 36 2.892 ± 0.021M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 40 2.995 ± 0.018M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 44 2.830 ± 0.019M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 48 2.877 ± 0.015M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
> rb-prod nr_prod 52 2.814 ± 0.015M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 2 +
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++--
> .../bpf/benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh | 4 +
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/ringbuf_bench.c | 10 ++
> 4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> index bd29bb2e6cb5..a98063f6436a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> @@ -541,6 +541,7 @@ extern const struct bench bench_trig_uretprobe_multi_nop5;
>
> extern const struct bench bench_rb_libbpf;
> extern const struct bench bench_rb_custom;
> +extern const struct bench bench_rb_prod;
> extern const struct bench bench_pb_libbpf;
> extern const struct bench bench_pb_custom;
> extern const struct bench bench_bloom_lookup;
> @@ -617,6 +618,7 @@ static const struct bench *benchs[] = {
> /* ringbuf/perfbuf benchmarks */
> &bench_rb_libbpf,
> &bench_rb_custom,
> + &bench_rb_prod,
> &bench_pb_libbpf,
> &bench_pb_custom,
> &bench_bloom_lookup,
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c
> index e1ee979e6acc..6d58479fac91 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_ringbufs.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ static struct {
> int ringbuf_sz; /* per-ringbuf, in bytes */
> bool ringbuf_use_output; /* use slower output API */
> int perfbuf_sz; /* per-CPU size, in pages */
> + bool overwrite;
> } args = {
> .back2back = false,
> .batch_cnt = 500,
> @@ -27,6 +28,7 @@ static struct {
> .ringbuf_sz = 512 * 1024,
> .ringbuf_use_output = false,
> .perfbuf_sz = 128,
> + .overwrite = false,
> };
>
> enum {
> @@ -35,6 +37,7 @@ enum {
> ARG_RB_BATCH_CNT = 2002,
> ARG_RB_SAMPLED = 2003,
> ARG_RB_SAMPLE_RATE = 2004,
> + ARG_RB_OVERWRITE = 2005,
> };
>
> static const struct argp_option opts[] = {
> @@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ static const struct argp_option opts[] = {
> { "rb-batch-cnt", ARG_RB_BATCH_CNT, "CNT", 0, "Set BPF-side record batch count"},
> { "rb-sampled", ARG_RB_SAMPLED, NULL, 0, "Notification sampling"},
> { "rb-sample-rate", ARG_RB_SAMPLE_RATE, "RATE", 0, "Notification sample rate"},
> + { "rb-overwrite", ARG_RB_OVERWRITE, NULL, 0, "Overwrite mode"},
> {},
> };
>
> @@ -72,6 +76,9 @@ static error_t parse_arg(int key, char *arg, struct argp_state *state)
> argp_usage(state);
> }
> break;
> + case ARG_RB_OVERWRITE:
> + args.overwrite = true;
> + break;
> default:
> return ARGP_ERR_UNKNOWN;
> }
> @@ -95,8 +102,30 @@ static inline void bufs_trigger_batch(void)
>
> static void bufs_validate(void)
> {
> - if (env.consumer_cnt != 1) {
> - fprintf(stderr, "rb-libbpf benchmark needs one consumer!\n");
> + bool bench_prod = !strcmp(env.bench_name, "rb-prod");
> +
> + if (args.overwrite && !bench_prod) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "overwite mode only works with benchmakr rb-prod!\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> +
> + if (bench_prod && env.consumer_cnt != 0) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "rb-prod benchmark does not need consumer!\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> +
> + if (bench_prod && args.back2back) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "back-to-back mode makes no sense for rb-prod!\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> +
> + if (bench_prod && args.sampled) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "sampling mode makes no sense for rb-prod!\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> +
> + if (!bench_prod && env.consumer_cnt != 1) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "benchmarks excluding rb-prod need one consumer!\n");
> exit(1);
> }
>
> @@ -132,8 +161,10 @@ static void ringbuf_libbpf_measure(struct bench_res *res)
> res->drops = atomic_swap(&ctx->skel->bss->dropped, 0);
> }
>
> -static struct ringbuf_bench *ringbuf_setup_skeleton(void)
> +static struct ringbuf_bench *ringbuf_setup_skeleton(int bench_prod)
int because C doesn't support bool?...
but really, do we need another benchmark just to set overwritable
mode?... can't you adapt existing benchmarks to optionally set
overwritable mode?
(and please drop sdf@...gle.com from CC for the next revision, that
email doesn't exist anymore)
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists