[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQK-Pu3t6jStXCtG2gS6okrt+mt7KzzedGzx8Hf8CXLijQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:57:25 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Marek Majkowski <marek@...udflare.com>,
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] bpf: Support chain calling multiple BPF
programs after each other
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:20 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> The change Toke did in BPF_PROG_RUN does not introduce any measurable
> performance change, as least on high-end Intel CPUs. This DOES satisfy
> 'no performance regressions' rule.
It adds extra load and branch in critical path of every program.
Including classic socket filters.
Not being able to measure the overhead in a microbenchmark
doesn't mean that overhead is not added.
Will 10 such branches be measurable?
What if they're not?
Then everyone will say: "It's not measurable in my setup, hence
I'm adding these branches".
tcp stack is even harder to measure. Yet, Eric will rightfully nack patches
that add such things when alternative solution is possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists