[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ftm2adi2.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:12:37 +0200
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
magnus.karlsson@...el.com, bjorn.topel@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, 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
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?
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...
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists