netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] Add support for SKIP_BPF flag for AF

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

Message-ID: <b9423054-247e-8b57-ea59-42368f60ea1e@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:25:57 -0700
From:   "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        magnus.karlsson@...el.com, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
        tom.herbert@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] Add support for SKIP_BPF flag for AF_XDP
 sockets


On 8/15/2019 4:12 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> writes:
> 
>> This patch series introduces XDP_SKIP_BPF flag that can be specified
>> during the bind() call of an AF_XDP socket to skip calling the BPF
>> program in the receive path and pass the buffer directly to the socket.
>>
>> When a single AF_XDP socket is associated with a queue and a HW
>> filter is used to redirect the packets and the app is interested in
>> receiving all the packets on that queue, we don't need an additional
>> BPF program to do further filtering or lookup/redirect to a socket.
>>
>> Here are some performance numbers collected on
>>    - 2 socket 28 core Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8180 CPU @ 2.50GHz
>>    - Intel 40Gb Ethernet NIC (i40e)
>>
>> All tests use 2 cores and the results are in Mpps.
>>
>> turbo on (default)
>> ---------------------------------------------	
>>                        no-skip-bpf    skip-bpf
>> ---------------------------------------------	
>> rxdrop zerocopy           21.9         38.5
>> l2fwd  zerocopy           17.0         20.5
>> rxdrop copy               11.1         13.3
>> l2fwd  copy                1.9          2.0
>>
>> no turbo :  echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/no_turbo
>> ---------------------------------------------	
>>                        no-skip-bpf    skip-bpf
>> ---------------------------------------------	
>> rxdrop zerocopy           15.4         29.0
>> l2fwd  zerocopy           11.8         18.2
>> rxdrop copy                8.2         10.5
>> l2fwd  copy                1.7          1.7
>> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> You're getting this performance boost by adding more code in the fast
> path for every XDP program; so what's the performance impact of that for
> cases where we do run an eBPF program?

The no-skip-bpf results are pretty close to what i see before the 
patches are applied. As umem is cached in rx_ring for zerocopy the 
overhead is much smaller compared to the copy scenario where i am 
currently calling xdp_get_umem_from_qid().

> 
> Also, this is basically a special-casing of a particular deployment
> scenario. Without a way to control RX queue assignment and traffic
> steering, you're basically hard-coding a particular app's takeover of
> the network interface; I'm not sure that is such a good idea...

Yes. This is mainly targeted for application that create 1 AF_XDP socket 
per RX queue and can use a HW filter (via ethtool or TC flower) to 
redirect the packets to a queue or a group of queues.

> 
> -Toke
>