[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6181d77a-66ed-76ff-35a4-b24134bc67fb@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:29:09 +0800
From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xiongchun Duan <duanxiongchun@...edance.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftest/bpf/benchs: Add bpf_map benchmark
在 2022/6/1 下午7:37, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:17 PM Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com> wrote:
>> 在 2022/6/1 下午5:53, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:42 AM Feng zhou <zhoufeng.zf@...edance.com> wrote:
>>>> +struct {
>>>> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
>>>> + __type(key, u32);
>>>> + __type(value, u64);
>>>> + __uint(max_entries, MAX_ENTRIES);
>>>> +} hash_map_bench SEC(".maps");
>>>> +
>>>> +u64 __attribute__((__aligned__(256))) percpu_time[256];
>>> aligned 256 ?
>>> What is the point?
>> I didn't think too much about it here, just referenced it from
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bloom_filter_bench.c
>>
>>>> +u64 nr_loops;
>>>> +
>>>> +static int loop_update_callback(__u32 index, u32 *key)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u64 init_val = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + bpf_map_update_elem(&hash_map_bench, key, &init_val, BPF_ANY);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +SEC("fentry/" SYS_PREFIX "sys_getpgid")
>>>> +int benchmark(void *ctx)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u32 key = bpf_get_prandom_u32() % MAX_ENTRIES + MAX_ENTRIES;
>>> What is the point of random ?
>>> just key = MAX_ENTRIES would be the same, no?
>>> or key = -1 ?
>> If all threads on different cpu trigger sys_getpgid and lookup the same
>> key, it will cause
>> "ret = htab_lock_bucket(htab, b, hash, &flags);"
>> the lock competition here is fierce, and unnecessary overhead is
>> introduced,
>> and I don't want it to interfere with the test.
> I see.
> but using random leaves it to chance.
> Use cpu+max_entries then?
Ok, will do. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists