[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ+HfNhN+0n1XAZ8-fvH9EDL44aEAfuhWHKOPzqfoavM9h+-nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:59:45 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>,
"Karlsson, Magnus" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <thoiland@...hat.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/6] Introduce the BPF dispatcher
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 14:55, Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Discussion/feedback
> ===================
>
> My measurements did not show any improvements for the jump target 16 B
> alignments. Maybe it would make sense to leave alignment out?
>
I did a micro benchmark with "test_progs -t xdp_prog" for all sizes
(max 48 aligned, max 64 non-aligned) of the dispatcher. I couldn't
measure any difference at all, so I will leave the last patch out
(aligning jump targets). If a workload appears where this is
measurable, it can be added at that point.
The micro benchmark also show that it makes little sense disabling the
dispatcher when "mitigations=off". The diff is within 1ns(!), when
mitigations are off. I'll post the data as a reply to the v4 cover
letter, so that the cover isn't clobbered with data. :-P
Björn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists