netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] bpf: add a longest prefix match trie map implementation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:29:10 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] bpf: add a longest prefix match trie map
 implementation

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:30:14PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
> > Another alternative is to extend samples/bpf/map_perf_test
> > It has perf tests for most map types today (including lru)
> > and trie would be natural addition there.
> > I would prefer this latter option.
> 
> I hooked into gettid() and installed a simple kprobe bpf program that
> searches for an entry in an lpm trie. The bpf program does either 0,
> 1, 8, or 32 lookups in a row (always the same element). The trie has
> size 0, 1, or 8192. The data is below. The results vary by roughly 5%
> on every run.
> 
> A single gettid() syscall with an empty bpf program takes roughly
> 6.5us on my system. Lookups in empty tries take ~1.8us on first try,
> ~0.9us on retries. Lookups in tries with 8192 entries take ~7.1us (on
> the first _and_ any subsequent try).

thanks. please add them to commit log.

> https://gist.github.com/dvdhrm/4c90e61a1c39746d5c55ab9e0e29315e

looks good. please add it as an extra patch to this set.
and add
#pragma clang loop unroll(full)
before
+       for (i = 0; i < 8; ++i)
+               bpf_map_lookup_elem(&lpm_trie_map_alloc, &key);
to make sure it's unrolled regardless of the version of llvm.

> Trie-size: 0
> #Lookups: 0
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 9,230,321 events per sec
>     -> 6.5us / syscall
> 
> Trie-size: 1
> #Lookups: 1
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 7,224,508 events per sec
>     -> 8.3us / syscall
> 
> Trie-size: 1
> #Lookups: 8
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 4,152,740 events per sec
>     -> 14.4us / syscall
> 
> Trie-size: 1
> #Lookups: 32
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 1,713,415 events per sec
>     -> 35.0us / syscall
> 
> Trie-size: 8192
> #Lookups: 1
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 4,369,138 events per sec
>     -> 13.7us / syscall
> 
> Trie-size: 8192
> #Lookups: 8
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 943,849 events per sec
>     -> 63.6us / syscall
> 
> Trie-size: 8192
> #Lookups: 32
>     0:lpm_perf kmalloc 271,737 events per sec
>     -> 220.8us / syscall

so it's the same lookup done 32-times per each syscall.
Since the latency of single lookup in 8 vs 32 experiments
are pretty close, it means that the 32 lookup numbers
amortize the cost of syscall pretty well and no need to go higher.
So I would use 32 as a loop count in stress_lpm_trie_map_alloc()

Thanks!