[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564502b3-7a4d-d046-b480-8d889cbcd879@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 20:37:48 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH 3/3] xdp: split code for map vs non-map redirect
On 08/31/2018 05:26 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> The compiler does an efficient job of inlining static C functions.
> Perf top clearly shows that almost everything gets inlined into the
> function call xdp_do_redirect.
>
> The function xdp_do_redirect end-up containing and interleaving the
> map and non-map redirect code. This is sub-optimal, as it would be
> strange for an XDP program to use both types of redirect in the same
> program. The two use-cases are separate, and interleaving the code
> just cause more instruction-cache pressure.
>
> I would like to stress (again) that the non-map variant bpf_redirect
> is very slow compared to the bpf_redirect_map variant, approx half the
> speed. Measured with driver i40e the difference is:
>
> - map redirect: 13,250,350 pps
> - non-map redirect: 7,491,425 pps
>
> For this reason, the function name of the non-map variant of redirect
> have been called xdp_do_redirect_slow. This hopefully gives a hint
> when using perf, that this is not the optimal XDP redirect operating mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> ---
> net/core/filter.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index ec1b4eb0d3d4..c4ad1b93167f 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -3170,6 +3170,32 @@ static int __bpf_tx_xdp(struct net_device *dev,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* non-static to avoid inline by compiler */
> +int xdp_do_redirect_slow(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_buff *xdp,
Nit: should be 'static noinline' in that case then.
> + struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog, struct bpf_redirect_info *ri)
> +{
> + struct net_device *fwd;
> + u32 index = ri->ifindex;
> + int err;
> +
> + fwd = dev_get_by_index_rcu(dev_net(dev), index);
> + ri->ifindex = 0;
> + if (unlikely(!fwd)) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto err;
> + }
> +
> + err = __bpf_tx_xdp(fwd, NULL, xdp, 0);
> + if (unlikely(err))
> + goto err;
> +
> + _trace_xdp_redirect(dev, xdp_prog, index);
> + return 0;
> +err:
> + _trace_xdp_redirect_err(dev, xdp_prog, index, err);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> static int __bpf_tx_xdp_map(struct net_device *dev_rx, void *fwd,
> struct bpf_map *map,
> struct xdp_buff *xdp,
> @@ -3264,9 +3290,9 @@ void bpf_clear_redirect_map(struct bpf_map *map)
> }
>
> static int xdp_do_redirect_map(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_buff *xdp,
> - struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog, struct bpf_map *map)
> + struct bpf_prog *xdp_prog, struct bpf_map *map,
> + struct bpf_redirect_info *ri)
> {
> - struct bpf_redirect_info *ri = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_redirect_info);
> u32 index = ri->ifindex;
> void *fwd = NULL;
> int err;
> @@ -3299,29 +3325,11 @@ int xdp_do_redirect(struct net_device *dev, struct xdp_buff *xdp,
> {
> struct bpf_redirect_info *ri = this_cpu_ptr(&bpf_redirect_info);
> struct bpf_map *map = READ_ONCE(ri->map);
> - struct net_device *fwd;
> - u32 index = ri->ifindex;
> - int err;
>
> if (likely(map))
> - return xdp_do_redirect_map(dev, xdp, xdp_prog, map);
> + return xdp_do_redirect_map(dev, xdp, xdp_prog, map, ri);
>
> - fwd = dev_get_by_index_rcu(dev_net(dev), index);
> - ri->ifindex = 0;
> - if (unlikely(!fwd)) {
> - err = -EINVAL;
> - goto err;
> - }
> -
> - err = __bpf_tx_xdp(fwd, NULL, xdp, 0);
> - if (unlikely(err))
> - goto err;
> -
> - _trace_xdp_redirect(dev, xdp_prog, index);
> - return 0;
> -err:
> - _trace_xdp_redirect_err(dev, xdp_prog, index, err);
> - return err;
> + return xdp_do_redirect_slow(dev, xdp, xdp_prog, ri);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xdp_do_redirect);
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists