| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <acf69635-5868-f876-f7da-08954d1f690e@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:40:07 -0700
From: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: "Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"Fijalkowski, Maciej" <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
"Herbert, Tom" <tom.herbert@...el.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] xsk: allow AF_XDP sockets to receive
packets directly from a queue
On 10/9/2019 6:06 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>
>> Will update the patchset with the right performance data and address
>> feedback from Bjorn.
>> Hope you are not totally against direct XDP approach as it does provide
>> value when an AF_XDP socket is bound to a queue and a HW filter can
>> direct packets targeted for that queue.
>
> I used to be in favor of providing "prog bypass" for af_xdp,
> because of anecdotal evidence that it will make af_xdp faster.
> Now seeing the numbers and the way they were collected
> I'm against such bypass.
> I want to see hard proof that trivial bpf prog is actually slowing things down
> before reviewing any new patch sets.
>
Here is a more detailed performance report that compares the current AF_XDP rx_drop
with the patches that enable direct receive without any XDP program. I also collected
and included kernel rxdrop data too as Jakub requested and also perf reports.
Hope it addresses the concerns you raised with the earlier data I posted.
Test Setup
==========
2 Skylake servers with Intel 40Gbe NICs connected via 100Gb Switch
Server Configuration
====================
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8180 CPU @ 2.50GHz (skylake)
CPU(s): 112
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-111
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 28
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 2
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-27,56-83
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 28-55,84-111
Memory: 96GB
NIC: Intel Corporation Ethernet Controller XL710 for 40GbE QSFP+ (rev 02)
Distro
======
Fedora 29 (Server Edition)
Kernel Configuration
====================
AF_XDP direct socket patches applied on top of
bpf-next git repo HEAD: 05949f63055fcf53947886ddb8e23c8a5d41bd80
# cat /proc/cmdline
BOOT_IMAGE=/vmlinuz-5.3.0-bpf-next-dxk+ root=/dev/mapper/fedora-root ro resume=/dev/mapper/fedora-swap rd.lvm.lv=fedora/root rd.lvm.lv=fedora/swap LANG=en_IN.UTF-8
For ‘mitigations OFF’ scenarios, the kernel command line parameter is changed to add ‘mitigations=off’
Packet Generator on the link partner
====================================
pktgen - sending 64 byte UDP packets at 43mpps
HW filter to redirect packet to a queue
=======================================
ethtool -N ens260f1 flow-type udp4 dst-ip 192.168.128.41 dst-port 9 action 28
Test Cases
==========
kernel rxdrop
taskset -c 28 samples/bpf/xdp_rxq_info -d ens260f1 -a XDP_DROP
AF_XDP default rxdrop
taskset -c 28 samples/bpf/xdpsock -i ens260f1 -r -q 28
AD_XDP direct rxdrop
taskset -c 28 samples/bpf/xdpsock -i ens260f1 -r -d -q 28
Performance Results
===================
Only 1 core is used in all these testcases as the app and the queue irq are pinned to the same core.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mitigations ON mitigations OFF
Testcase ----------------------------------------------------------
no patches with patches no patches with patches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AF_XDP default rxdrop X X Y Y
AF_XDP direct rxdrop N/A X+46% N/A Y+25%
Kernel rxdrop X+61% X+61% Y+53% Y+53%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here Y is pps with CPU security mitigations turned OFF and it is 26% better than X.
So there is 46% improvement in AF_XDP rxdrop performance with direct receive when
mitigations are ON (default configuration) and 25% improvement when mitigations are
turned OFF.
As expected, the in-kernel rxdrop performance is higher even with direct receive in
both scenarios.
Perf report for "AF_XDP default rxdrop" with patched kernel - mitigations ON
==========================================================================
Samples: 44K of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 38532389541
Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
15.31% ksoftirqd/28 [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_rx_irq_zc
10.50% ksoftirqd/28 bpf_prog_80b55d8a76303785 [k] bpf_prog_80b55d8a76303785
9.48% xdpsock [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_rx_irq_zc
8.62% xdpsock xdpsock [.] main
7.11% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_rcv
5.81% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xdp_do_redirect
4.46% xdpsock bpf_prog_80b55d8a76303785 [k] bpf_prog_80b55d8a76303785
3.83% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_rcv
2.81% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] bpf_xdp_redirect_map
2.78% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_map_lookup_elem
2.44% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xdp_do_redirect
2.19% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __xsk_map_redirect
1.62% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_umem_peek_addr
1.57% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_umem_peek_addr
1.32% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_cpu
1.28% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] bpf_xdp_redirect_map
1.15% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_device
1.12% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_map_lookup_elem
1.06% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __xsk_map_redirect
0.94% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_device
0.75% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __x86_indirect_thunk_rax
0.66% ksoftirqd/28 [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_programming_status
0.64% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] net_rx_action
0.64% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idle
0.62% ksoftirqd/28 [i40e] [k] i40e_napi_poll
0.57% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_cpu
Perf report for "AF_XDP direct rxdrop" with patched kernel - mitigations ON
==========================================================================
Samples: 46K of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 38387018585
Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
21.94% ksoftirqd/28 [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_rx_irq_zc
14.36% xdpsock xdpsock [.] main
11.53% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_rcv
11.32% xdpsock [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_rx_irq_zc
4.02% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_rcv
2.91% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xdp_do_redirect
2.45% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_umem_peek_addr
2.19% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_umem_peek_addr
2.08% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] bpf_direct_xsk
2.07% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_cpu
1.53% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_device
1.39% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_device
1.22% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xdp_get_xsk_from_qid
1.12% ksoftirqd/28 [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_programming_status
0.96% ksoftirqd/28 [i40e] [k] i40e_napi_poll
0.95% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] net_rx_action
0.89% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xdp_do_redirect
0.83% swapper [i40e] [k] i40e_clean_rx_irq_zc
0.70% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] intel_idle
0.66% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] dma_direct_sync_single_for_cpu
0.60% xdpsock [kernel.vmlinux] [k] bpf_direct_xsk
0.50% ksoftirqd/28 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] xsk_umem_discard_addr
Based on the perf reports comparing AF_XDP default and direct rxdrop, we can say that
AF_XDP direct rxdrop codepath is avoiding the overhead of going through these functions
bpf_prog_xxx
bpf_xdp_redirect_map
xsk_map_lookup_elem
__xsk_map_redirect
With AF_XDP direct, xsk_rcv() is directly called via bpf_direct_xsk() in xdp_do_redirect()
The above test results document performance of components on a particular test, in specific systems.
Differences in hardware, software, or configuration will affect actual performance.
Thanks
Sridhar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists