netdev - Re: [RFC/RFT v2 0/3] Introduce GRO support to cpumap codebase

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c3e20036-2bb3-4bca-932c-33fd3801f138@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:50:42 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
CC: <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>,
	<daniel@...earbox.net>, <andrii@...nel.org>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	<hawk@...nel.org>, <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT v2 0/3] Introduce GRO support to cpumap codebase

From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 14:47:58 +0200

>> From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:46:00 +0200
>>
>>>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:13:42PM GMT, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>>>>> Add GRO support to cpumap codebase moving the cpu_map_entry kthread to a
>>>>> NAPI-kthread pinned on the selected cpu.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in rfc v2:
>>>>> - get rid of dummy netdev dependency
>>>>>
>>>>> Lorenzo Bianconi (3):
>>>>>   net: Add napi_init_for_gro routine
>>>>>   net: add napi_threaded_poll to netdevice.h
>>>>>   bpf: cpumap: Add gro support
>>>>>
>>>>>  include/linux/netdevice.h |   3 +
>>>>>  kernel/bpf/cpumap.c       | 123 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>>  net/core/dev.c            |  27 ++++++---
>>>>>  3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 2.46.0
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry about the long delay - finally caught up to everything after
>>>> conferences.
>>>>
>>>> I re-ran my synthetic tests (including baseline). v2 is somehow showing
>>>> 2x bigger gains than v1 (~30% vs ~14%) for tcp_stream. Again, the only
>>>> variable I changed is kernel version - steering prog is active for both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Baseline (again)							
>>>>
>>>> ./tcp_rr -c -H $TASK_IP -p 50,90,99 -T4 -F8 -l30			        ./tcp_stream -c -H $TASK_IP -T8 -F16 -l30
>>>> 							
>>>> 	Transactions	Latency P50 (s)	Latency P90 (s)	Latency P99 (s)			Throughput (Mbit/s)
>>>> Run 1	2560252	        0.00009087	0.00010495	0.00011647		Run 1	15479.31
>>>> Run 2	2665517	        0.00008575	0.00010239	0.00013311		Run 2	15162.48
>>>> Run 3	2755939	        0.00008191	0.00010367	0.00012287		Run 3	14709.04
>>>> Run 4	2595680	        0.00008575	0.00011263	0.00012671		Run 4	15373.06
>>>> Run 5	2841865	        0.00007999	0.00009471	0.00012799		Run 5	15234.91
>>>> Average	2683850.6	0.000084854	0.00010367	0.00012543		Average	15191.76
>>>> 							
>>>> cpumap NAPI patches v2							
>>>> 							
>>>> 	Transactions	Latency P50 (s)	Latency P90 (s)	Latency P99 (s)			Throughput (Mbit/s)
>>>> Run 1	2577838	        0.00008575	0.00012031	0.00013695		Run 1	19914.56
>>>> Run 2	2729237	        0.00007551	0.00013311	0.00017663		Run 2	20140.92
>>>> Run 3	2689442	        0.00008319	0.00010495	0.00013311		Run 3	19887.48
>>>> Run 4	2862366	        0.00008127	0.00009471	0.00010623		Run 4	19374.49
>>>> Run 5	2700538	        0.00008319	0.00010367	0.00012799		Run 5	19784.49
>>>> Average	2711884.2	0.000081782	0.00011135	0.000136182		Average	19820.388
>>>> Delta	1.04%	        -3.62%	        7.41%	        8.57%			        30.47%
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> cool, thx for testing it.
>>>
>>> @Olek: how do we want to proceed on it? Are you still working on it or do you want me
>>> to send a regular patch for it?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a small vacation, sorry. I'm starting working on it again today.
> 
> ack, no worries. Are you going to rebase the other patches on top of it
> or are you going to try a different approach?

I'll try the approach without NAPI as Kuba asks and let Daniel test it,
then we'll see.

BTW I'm curious how he got this boost on v2, from what I see you didn't
change the implementation that much?

Thanks,
Olek