This patch tests how many kmallocs is needed to create and free
a batch of UDP sockets and each socket has a 64bytes bpf storage.
It also measures how fast the UDP sockets can be created.
The result is from my qemu setup.
Before bpf_mem_cache_alloc/free:
./bench -p 1 local-storage-create
Setting up benchmark 'local-storage-create'...
Benchmark 'local-storage-create' started.
Iter 0 ( 73.193us): creates 213.552k/s (213.552k/prod), 3.09 kmallocs/create
Iter 1 (-20.724us): creates 211.908k/s (211.908k/prod), 3.09 kmallocs/create
Iter 2 ( 9.280us): creates 212.574k/s (212.574k/prod), 3.12 kmallocs/create
Iter 3 ( 11.039us): creates 213.209k/s (213.209k/prod), 3.12 kmallocs/create
Iter 4 (-11.411us): creates 213.351k/s (213.351k/prod), 3.12 kmallocs/create
Iter 5 ( -7.915us): creates 214.754k/s (214.754k/prod), 3.12 kmallocs/create
Iter 6 ( 11.317us): creates 210.942k/s (210.942k/prod), 3.12 kmallocs/create
Summary: creates 212.789 ± 1.310k/s (212.789k/prod), 3.12 kmallocs/create
After bpf_mem_cache_alloc/free:
./bench -p 1 local-storage-create
Setting up benchmark 'local-storage-create'...
Benchmark 'local-storage-create' started.
Iter 0 ( 68.265us): creates 243.984k/s (243.984k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Iter 1 ( 30.357us): creates 238.424k/s (238.424k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Iter 2 (-18.712us): creates 232.963k/s (232.963k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Iter 3 (-15.885us): creates 238.879k/s (238.879k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Iter 4 ( 5.590us): creates 237.490k/s (237.490k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Iter 5 ( 8.577us): creates 237.521k/s (237.521k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Iter 6 ( -6.263us): creates 238.508k/s (238.508k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Summary: creates 237.298 ± 2.198k/s (237.298k/prod), 1.04 kmallocs/create
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230308065936.1550103-18-martin.lau@linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add a new benchmark which measures hashmap lookup operations speed. A user can
control the following parameters of the benchmark:
* key_size (max 1024): the key size to use
* max_entries: the hashmap max entries
* nr_entries: the number of entries to insert/lookup
* nr_loops: the number of loops for the benchmark
* map_flags The hashmap flags passed to BPF_MAP_CREATE
The BPF program performing the benchmarks calls two nested bpf_loop:
bpf_loop(nr_loops/nr_entries)
bpf_loop(nr_entries)
bpf_map_lookup()
So the nr_loops determines the number of actual map lookups. All lookups are
successful.
Example (the output is generated on a AMD Ryzen 9 3950X machine):
for nr_entries in `seq 4096 4096 65536`; do echo -n "$((nr_entries*100/65536))% full: "; sudo ./bench -d2 -a bpf-hashmap-lookup --key_size=4 --nr_entries=$nr_entries --max_entries=65536 --nr_loops=1000000 --map_flags=0x40 | grep cpu; done
6% full: cpu01: lookup 50.739M ± 0.018M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~19ms)
12% full: cpu01: lookup 47.751M ± 0.015M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~20ms)
18% full: cpu01: lookup 45.153M ± 0.013M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~22ms)
25% full: cpu01: lookup 43.826M ± 0.014M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~22ms)
31% full: cpu01: lookup 41.971M ± 0.012M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~23ms)
37% full: cpu01: lookup 41.034M ± 0.015M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~24ms)
43% full: cpu01: lookup 39.946M ± 0.012M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~25ms)
50% full: cpu01: lookup 38.256M ± 0.014M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~26ms)
56% full: cpu01: lookup 36.580M ± 0.018M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~27ms)
62% full: cpu01: lookup 36.252M ± 0.012M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~27ms)
68% full: cpu01: lookup 35.200M ± 0.012M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~28ms)
75% full: cpu01: lookup 34.061M ± 0.009M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~29ms)
81% full: cpu01: lookup 34.374M ± 0.010M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~29ms)
87% full: cpu01: lookup 33.244M ± 0.011M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~30ms)
93% full: cpu01: lookup 32.182M ± 0.013M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~31ms)
100% full: cpu01: lookup 31.497M ± 0.016M events/sec (approximated from 32 samples of ~31ms)
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230213091519.1202813-8-aspsk@isovalent.com
The bench utility will print
Setting up benchmark '<bench-name>'...
Benchmark '<bench-name>' started.
on startup to stdout. Suppress this output if --quiet option if given. This
makes it simpler to parse benchmark output by a script.
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230213091519.1202813-7-aspsk@isovalent.com
The "local-storage-tasks-trace" benchmark has a `--quiet` option. Move it to
the list of common options, so that the main code and other benchmarks can use
(new) env.quiet variable. Patch the run_bench_local_storage_rcu_tasks_trace.sh
helper script accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230213091519.1202813-6-aspsk@isovalent.com
To parse command line the bench utility uses the argp_parse() function. This
function takes as an argument a parent 'struct argp' structure which defines
common command line options and an array of children 'struct argp' structures
which defines additional command line options for particular benchmarks. This
implementation doesn't allow benchmarks to share option names, e.g., if two
benchmarks want to use, say, the --option option, then only one of them will
succeed (the first one encountered in the array). This will be convenient if
same option names could be used in different benchmarks (with the same
semantics, e.g., --nr_loops=N).
Fix this by calling the argp_parse() function twice. The first call is the same
as it was before, with all children argps, and helps to find the benchmark name
and to print a combined help message if anything is wrong. Given the name, we
can call the argp_parse the second time, but now the children array points only
to a correct benchmark thus always calling the correct parsers. (If there's no
a specific list of arguments, then only one call to argp_parse will be done.)
Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <aspsk@isovalent.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230213091519.1202813-4-aspsk@isovalent.com
This benchmark measures grace period latency and kthread cpu usage of
RCU Tasks Trace when many processes are creating/deleting BPF
local_storage. Intent here is to quantify improvement on these metrics
after Paul's recent RCU Tasks patches [0].
Specifically, fork 15k tasks which call a bpf prog that creates/destroys
task local_storage and sleep in a loop, resulting in many
call_rcu_tasks_trace calls.
To determine grace period latency, trace time elapsed between
rcu_tasks_trace_pregp_step and rcu_tasks_trace_postgp; for cpu usage
look at rcu_task_trace_kthread's stime in /proc/PID/stat.
On my virtualized test environment (Skylake, 8 cpus) benchmark results
demonstrate significant improvement:
BEFORE Paul's patches:
SUMMARY tasks_trace grace period latency avg 22298.551 us stddev 1302.165 us
SUMMARY ticks per tasks_trace grace period avg 2.291 stddev 0.324
AFTER Paul's patches:
SUMMARY tasks_trace grace period latency avg 16969.197 us stddev 2525.053 us
SUMMARY ticks per tasks_trace grace period avg 1.146 stddev 0.178
Note that since these patches are not in bpf-next benchmarking was done
by cherry-picking this patch onto rcu tree.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/20220620225402.GA3842369@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1/
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220705190018.3239050-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Add a benchmarks to demonstrate the performance cliff for local_storage
get as the number of local_storage maps increases beyond current
local_storage implementation's cache size.
"sequential get" and "interleaved get" benchmarks are added, both of
which do many bpf_task_storage_get calls on sets of task local_storage
maps of various counts, while considering a single specific map to be
'important' and counting task_storage_gets to the important map
separately in addition to normal 'hits' count of all gets. Goal here is
to mimic scenario where a particular program using one map - the
important one - is running on a system where many other local_storage
maps exist and are accessed often.
While "sequential get" benchmark does bpf_task_storage_get for map 0, 1,
..., {9, 99, 999} in order, "interleaved" benchmark interleaves 4
bpf_task_storage_gets for the important map for every 10 map gets. This
is meant to highlight performance differences when important map is
accessed far more frequently than non-important maps.
A "hashmap control" benchmark is also included for easy comparison of
standard bpf hashmap lookup vs local_storage get. The benchmark is
similar to "sequential get", but creates and uses BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH
instead of local storage. Only one inner map is created - a hashmap
meant to hold tid -> data mapping for all tasks. Size of the hashmap is
hardcoded to my system's PID_MAX_LIMIT (4,194,304). The number of these
keys which are actually fetched as part of the benchmark is
configurable.
Addition of this benchmark is inspired by conversation with Alexei in a
previous patchset's thread [0], which highlighted the need for such a
benchmark to motivate and validate improvements to local_storage
implementation. My approach in that series focused on improving
performance for explicitly-marked 'important' maps and was rejected
with feedback to make more generally-applicable improvements while
avoiding explicitly marking maps as important. Thus the benchmark
reports both general and important-map-focused metrics, so effect of
future work on both is clear.
Regarding the benchmark results. On a powerful system (Skylake, 20
cores, 256gb ram):
Hashmap Control
===============
num keys: 10
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 20.900 ± 0.334 M ops/s, hits latency: 47.847 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 20.900 ± 0.334 M ops/s
num keys: 1000
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 13.758 ± 0.219 M ops/s, hits latency: 72.683 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 13.758 ± 0.219 M ops/s
num keys: 10000
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 6.995 ± 0.034 M ops/s, hits latency: 142.959 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 6.995 ± 0.034 M ops/s
num keys: 100000
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 4.452 ± 0.371 M ops/s, hits latency: 224.635 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 4.452 ± 0.371 M ops/s
num keys: 4194304
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 3.043 ± 0.033 M ops/s, hits latency: 328.587 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 3.043 ± 0.033 M ops/s
Local Storage
=============
num_maps: 1
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 47.298 ± 0.180 M ops/s, hits latency: 21.142 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 47.298 ± 0.180 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 55.277 ± 0.888 M ops/s, hits latency: 18.091 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 55.277 ± 0.888 M ops/s
num_maps: 10
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 40.240 ± 0.802 M ops/s, hits latency: 24.851 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 4.024 ± 0.080 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 48.701 ± 0.722 M ops/s, hits latency: 20.533 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 17.393 ± 0.258 M ops/s
num_maps: 16
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 44.515 ± 0.708 M ops/s, hits latency: 22.464 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 2.782 ± 0.044 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 49.553 ± 2.260 M ops/s, hits latency: 20.181 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 15.767 ± 0.719 M ops/s
num_maps: 17
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 38.778 ± 0.302 M ops/s, hits latency: 25.788 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 2.284 ± 0.018 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 43.848 ± 1.023 M ops/s, hits latency: 22.806 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 13.349 ± 0.311 M ops/s
num_maps: 24
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 19.317 ± 0.568 M ops/s, hits latency: 51.769 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 0.806 ± 0.024 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 24.397 ± 0.272 M ops/s, hits latency: 40.989 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 6.863 ± 0.077 M ops/s
num_maps: 32
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 13.333 ± 0.135 M ops/s, hits latency: 75.000 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 0.417 ± 0.004 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 16.898 ± 0.383 M ops/s, hits latency: 59.178 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 4.717 ± 0.107 M ops/s
num_maps: 100
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 6.360 ± 0.107 M ops/s, hits latency: 157.233 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 0.064 ± 0.001 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 7.303 ± 0.362 M ops/s, hits latency: 136.930 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 1.907 ± 0.094 M ops/s
num_maps: 1000
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 0.452 ± 0.010 M ops/s, hits latency: 2214.022 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 0.000 ± 0.000 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 0.542 ± 0.007 M ops/s, hits latency: 1843.341 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 0.136 ± 0.002 M ops/s
Looking at the "sequential get" results, it's clear that as the
number of task local_storage maps grows beyond the current cache size
(16), there's a significant reduction in hits throughput. Note that
current local_storage implementation assigns a cache_idx to maps as they
are created. Since "sequential get" is creating maps 0..n in order and
then doing bpf_task_storage_get calls in the same order, the benchmark
is effectively ensuring that a map will not be in cache when the program
tries to access it.
For "interleaved get" results, important-map hits throughput is greatly
increased as the important map is more likely to be in cache by virtue
of being accessed far more frequently. Throughput still reduces as #
maps increases, though.
To get a sense of the overhead of the benchmark program, I
commented out bpf_task_storage_get/bpf_map_lookup_elem in
local_storage_bench.c and ran the benchmark on the same host as the
'real' run. Results:
Hashmap Control
===============
num keys: 10
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 54.288 ± 0.655 M ops/s, hits latency: 18.420 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 54.288 ± 0.655 M ops/s
num keys: 1000
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 52.913 ± 0.519 M ops/s, hits latency: 18.899 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 52.913 ± 0.519 M ops/s
num keys: 10000
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 53.480 ± 1.235 M ops/s, hits latency: 18.699 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 53.480 ± 1.235 M ops/s
num keys: 100000
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 54.982 ± 1.902 M ops/s, hits latency: 18.188 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 54.982 ± 1.902 M ops/s
num keys: 4194304
hashmap (control) sequential get: hits throughput: 50.858 ± 0.707 M ops/s, hits latency: 19.662 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 50.858 ± 0.707 M ops/s
Local Storage
=============
num_maps: 1
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 110.990 ± 4.828 M ops/s, hits latency: 9.010 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 110.990 ± 4.828 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 161.057 ± 4.090 M ops/s, hits latency: 6.209 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 161.057 ± 4.090 M ops/s
num_maps: 10
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 112.930 ± 1.079 M ops/s, hits latency: 8.855 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 11.293 ± 0.108 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 115.841 ± 2.088 M ops/s, hits latency: 8.633 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 41.372 ± 0.746 M ops/s
num_maps: 16
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 115.653 ± 0.416 M ops/s, hits latency: 8.647 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 7.228 ± 0.026 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 138.717 ± 1.649 M ops/s, hits latency: 7.209 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 44.137 ± 0.525 M ops/s
num_maps: 17
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 112.020 ± 1.649 M ops/s, hits latency: 8.927 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 6.598 ± 0.097 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 128.089 ± 1.960 M ops/s, hits latency: 7.807 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 38.995 ± 0.597 M ops/s
num_maps: 24
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 92.447 ± 5.170 M ops/s, hits latency: 10.817 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 3.855 ± 0.216 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 128.844 ± 2.808 M ops/s, hits latency: 7.761 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 36.245 ± 0.790 M ops/s
num_maps: 32
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 102.042 ± 1.462 M ops/s, hits latency: 9.800 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 3.194 ± 0.046 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 126.577 ± 1.818 M ops/s, hits latency: 7.900 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 35.332 ± 0.507 M ops/s
num_maps: 100
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 111.327 ± 1.401 M ops/s, hits latency: 8.983 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 1.113 ± 0.014 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 131.327 ± 1.339 M ops/s, hits latency: 7.615 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 34.302 ± 0.350 M ops/s
num_maps: 1000
local_storage cache sequential get: hits throughput: 101.978 ± 0.563 M ops/s, hits latency: 9.806 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 0.102 ± 0.001 M ops/s
local_storage cache interleaved get: hits throughput: 141.084 ± 1.098 M ops/s, hits latency: 7.088 ns/op, important_hits throughput: 35.430 ± 0.276 M ops/s
Adjusting for overhead, latency numbers for "hashmap control" and
"sequential get" are:
hashmap_control_1k: ~53.8ns
hashmap_control_10k: ~124.2ns
hashmap_control_100k: ~206.5ns
sequential_get_1: ~12.1ns
sequential_get_10: ~16.0ns
sequential_get_16: ~13.8ns
sequential_get_17: ~16.8ns
sequential_get_24: ~40.9ns
sequential_get_32: ~65.2ns
sequential_get_100: ~148.2ns
sequential_get_1000: ~2204ns
Clearly demonstrating a cliff.
In the discussion for v1 of this patch, Alexei noted that local_storage
was 2.5x faster than a large hashmap when initially implemented [1]. The
benchmark results show that local_storage is 5-10x faster: a
long-running BPF application putting some pid-specific info into a
hashmap for each pid it sees will probably see on the order of 10-100k
pids. Bench numbers for hashmaps of this size are ~10x slower than
sequential_get_16, but as the number of local_storage maps grows far
past local_storage cache size the performance advantage shrinks and
eventually reverses.
When running the benchmarks it may be necessary to bump 'open files'
ulimit for a successful run.
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220420002143.1096548-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220511173305.ftldpn23m4ski3d3@MBP-98dd607d3435.dhcp.thefacebook.com/
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220620222554.270578-1-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Add benchmark for hash_map to reproduce the worst case
that non-stop update when map's free is zero.
Just like this:
./run_bench_bpf_hashmap_full_update.sh
Setting up benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update'...
Benchmark 'bpf-hashmap-ful-update' started.
1:hash_map_full_perf 555830 events per sec
...
Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220610023308.93798-3-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
We have switched to memcg-based memory accouting and thus the rlimit is
not needed any more. LIBBPF_STRICT_AUTO_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK was introduced in
libbpf for backward compatibility, so we can use it instead now. After
this change, the header tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_rlimit.h can be
removed.
This patch also removes the useless header sys/resource.h from many files
in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220409125958.92629-3-laoar.shao@gmail.com
As libbpf now is able to automatically take care of RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
increase (or skip it altogether on recent enough kernels), remove
explicit setrlimit() invocations in bench, test_maps, test_verifier, and
test_progs.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211214195904.1785155-3-andrii@kernel.org
Fix checkpatch error: "ERROR: Bad function definition - void foo()
should probably be void foo(void)". Most replacements are done by
the following command:
sed -i 's#\([a-z]\)()$#\1(void)#g' testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/*.c
Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211210141652.877186-3-houtao1@huawei.com
Add benchmark to measure the throughput and latency of the bpf_loop
call.
Testing this on my dev machine on 1 thread, the data is as follows:
nr_loops: 10
bpf_loop - throughput: 198.519 ± 0.155 M ops/s, latency: 5.037 ns/op
nr_loops: 100
bpf_loop - throughput: 247.448 ± 0.305 M ops/s, latency: 4.041 ns/op
nr_loops: 500
bpf_loop - throughput: 260.839 ± 0.380 M ops/s, latency: 3.834 ns/op
nr_loops: 1000
bpf_loop - throughput: 262.806 ± 0.629 M ops/s, latency: 3.805 ns/op
nr_loops: 5000
bpf_loop - throughput: 264.211 ± 1.508 M ops/s, latency: 3.785 ns/op
nr_loops: 10000
bpf_loop - throughput: 265.366 ± 3.054 M ops/s, latency: 3.768 ns/op
nr_loops: 50000
bpf_loop - throughput: 235.986 ± 20.205 M ops/s, latency: 4.238 ns/op
nr_loops: 100000
bpf_loop - throughput: 264.482 ± 0.279 M ops/s, latency: 3.781 ns/op
nr_loops: 500000
bpf_loop - throughput: 309.773 ± 87.713 M ops/s, latency: 3.228 ns/op
nr_loops: 1000000
bpf_loop - throughput: 262.818 ± 4.143 M ops/s, latency: 3.805 ns/op
>From this data, we can see that the latency per loop decreases as the
number of loops increases. On this particular machine, each loop had an
overhead of about ~4 ns, and we were able to run ~250 million loops
per second.
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211130030622.4131246-5-joannekoong@fb.com
Add benchmark to measure overhead of uprobes and uretprobes. Also have
a baseline (no uprobe attached) benchmark.
On my dev machine, baseline benchmark can trigger 130M user_target()
invocations. When uprobe is attached, this falls to just 700K. With
uretprobe, we get down to 520K:
$ sudo ./bench trig-uprobe-base -a
Summary: hits 131.289 ± 2.872M/s
# UPROBE
$ sudo ./bench -a trig-uprobe-without-nop
Summary: hits 0.729 ± 0.007M/s
$ sudo ./bench -a trig-uprobe-with-nop
Summary: hits 1.798 ± 0.017M/s
# URETPROBE
$ sudo ./bench -a trig-uretprobe-without-nop
Summary: hits 0.508 ± 0.012M/s
$ sudo ./bench -a trig-uretprobe-with-nop
Summary: hits 0.883 ± 0.008M/s
So there is almost 2.5x performance difference between probing nop vs
non-nop instruction for entry uprobe. And 1.7x difference for uretprobe.
This means that non-nop uprobe overhead is around 1.4 microseconds for uprobe
and 2 microseconds for non-nop uretprobe.
For nop variants, uprobe and uretprobe overhead is down to 0.556 and
1.13 microseconds, respectively.
For comparison, just doing a very low-overhead syscall (with no BPF
programs attached anywhere) gives:
$ sudo ./bench trig-base -a
Summary: hits 4.830 ± 0.036M/s
So uprobes are about 2.67x slower than pure context switch.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211116013041.4072571-1-andrii@kernel.org
This patch adds benchmark tests for comparing the performance of hashmap
lookups without the bloom filter vs. hashmap lookups with the bloom filter.
Checking the bloom filter first for whether the element exists should
overall enable a higher throughput for hashmap lookups, since if the
element does not exist in the bloom filter, we can avoid a costly lookup in
the hashmap.
On average, using 5 hash functions in the bloom filter tended to perform
the best across the widest range of different entry sizes. The benchmark
results using 5 hash functions (running on 8 threads on a machine with one
numa node, and taking the average of 3 runs) were roughly as follows:
value_size = 4 bytes -
10k entries: 30% faster
50k entries: 40% faster
100k entries: 40% faster
500k entres: 70% faster
1 million entries: 90% faster
5 million entries: 140% faster
value_size = 8 bytes -
10k entries: 30% faster
50k entries: 40% faster
100k entries: 50% faster
500k entres: 80% faster
1 million entries: 100% faster
5 million entries: 150% faster
value_size = 16 bytes -
10k entries: 20% faster
50k entries: 30% faster
100k entries: 35% faster
500k entres: 65% faster
1 million entries: 85% faster
5 million entries: 110% faster
value_size = 40 bytes -
10k entries: 5% faster
50k entries: 15% faster
100k entries: 20% faster
500k entres: 65% faster
1 million entries: 75% faster
5 million entries: 120% faster
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211027234504.30744-6-joannekoong@fb.com
This patch adds benchmark tests for the throughput (for lookups + updates)
and the false positive rate of bloom filter lookups, as well as some
minor refactoring of the bash script for running the benchmarks.
These benchmarks show that as the number of hash functions increases,
the throughput and the false positive rate of the bloom filter decreases.
>From the benchmark data, the approximate average false-positive rates
are roughly as follows:
1 hash function = ~30%
2 hash functions = ~15%
3 hash functions = ~5%
4 hash functions = ~2.5%
5 hash functions = ~1%
6 hash functions = ~0.5%
7 hash functions = ~0.35%
8 hash functions = ~0.15%
9 hash functions = ~0.1%
10 hash functions = ~0%
For reference data, the benchmarks run on one thread on a machine
with one numa node for 1 to 5 hash functions for 8-byte and 64-byte
values are as follows:
1 hash function:
50k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 51.1 M/s operations
Updates - 33.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 24.15%
64-byte value
Lookups - 15.7 M/s operations
Updates - 15.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 24.2%
100k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 51.0 M/s operations
Updates - 33.4 M/s operations
False positive rate: 24.04%
64-byte value
Lookups - 15.6 M/s operations
Updates - 14.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 24.06%
500k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 50.5 M/s operations
Updates - 33.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 27.45%
64-byte value
Lookups - 15.6 M/s operations
Updates - 14.2 M/s operations
False positive rate: 27.42%
1 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 49.7 M/s operations
Updates - 32.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 27.45%
64-byte value
Lookups - 15.4 M/s operations
Updates - 13.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 27.58%
2.5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 47.2 M/s operations
Updates - 31.8 M/s operations
False positive rate: 30.94%
64-byte value
Lookups - 15.3 M/s operations
Updates - 13.2 M/s operations
False positive rate: 30.95%
5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 41.1 M/s operations
Updates - 28.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 31.01%
64-byte value
Lookups - 13.3 M/s operations
Updates - 11.4 M/s operations
False positive rate: 30.98%
2 hash functions:
50k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 34.1 M/s operations
Updates - 20.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 9.13%
64-byte value
Lookups - 8.4 M/s operations
Updates - 7.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 9.21%
100k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 33.7 M/s operations
Updates - 18.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 9.13%
64-byte value
Lookups - 8.4 M/s operations
Updates - 7.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 9.19%
500k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 32.7 M/s operations
Updates - 18.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 12.61%
64-byte value
Lookups - 8.4 M/s operations
Updates - 7.5 M/s operations
False positive rate: 12.61%
1 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 30.6 M/s operations
Updates - 18.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 12.54%
64-byte value
Lookups - 8.0 M/s operations
Updates - 7.0 M/s operations
False positive rate: 12.52%
2.5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 25.3 M/s operations
Updates - 16.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 16.77%
64-byte value
Lookups - 7.9 M/s operations
Updates - 6.5 M/s operations
False positive rate: 16.88%
5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 20.8 M/s operations
Updates - 14.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 16.78%
64-byte value
Lookups - 7.0 M/s operations
Updates - 6.0 M/s operations
False positive rate: 16.78%
3 hash functions:
50k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 25.1 M/s operations
Updates - 14.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 7.65%
64-byte value
Lookups - 5.8 M/s operations
Updates - 5.5 M/s operations
False positive rate: 7.58%
100k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 24.7 M/s operations
Updates - 14.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 7.71%
64-byte value
Lookups - 5.8 M/s operations
Updates - 5.3 M/s operations
False positive rate: 7.62%
500k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 22.9 M/s operations
Updates - 13.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 2.62%
64-byte value
Lookups - 5.6 M/s operations
Updates - 4.8 M/s operations
False positive rate: 2.7%
1 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 19.8 M/s operations
Updates - 12.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 2.60%
64-byte value
Lookups - 5.3 M/s operations
Updates - 4.4 M/s operations
False positive rate: 2.69%
2.5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 16.2 M/s operations
Updates - 10.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 4.49%
64-byte value
Lookups - 4.9 M/s operations
Updates - 4.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 4.41%
5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 18.8 M/s operations
Updates - 9.2 M/s operations
False positive rate: 4.45%
64-byte value
Lookups - 5.2 M/s operations
Updates - 3.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 4.54%
4 hash functions:
50k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 19.7 M/s operations
Updates - 11.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.01%
64-byte value
Lookups - 4.4 M/s operations
Updates - 4.0 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.00%
100k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 19.5 M/s operations
Updates - 10.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.00%
64-byte value
Lookups - 4.3 M/s operations
Updates - 3.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.97%
500k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 18.2 M/s operations
Updates - 10.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 2.05%
64-byte value
Lookups - 4.3 M/s operations
Updates - 3.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 2.05%
1 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 15.5 M/s operations
Updates - 9.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.99%
64-byte value
Lookups - 4.0 M/s operations
Updates - 3.4 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.99%
2.5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 13.8 M/s operations
Updates - 7.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 3.91%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.7 M/s operations
Updates - 3.6 M/s operations
False positive rate: 3.78%
5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 13.0 M/s operations
Updates - 6.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 3.93%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.5 M/s operations
Updates - 3.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 3.39%
5 hash functions:
50k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 16.4 M/s operations
Updates - 9.1 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.78%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.5 M/s operations
Updates - 3.2 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.77%
100k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 16.3 M/s operations
Updates - 9.0 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.79%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.5 M/s operations
Updates - 3.2 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.78%
500k entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 15.1 M/s operations
Updates - 8.8 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.82%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.4 M/s operations
Updates - 3.0 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.78%
1 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 13.2 M/s operations
Updates - 7.8 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.81%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.2 M/s operations
Updates - 2.8 M/s operations
False positive rate: 1.80%
2.5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 10.5 M/s operations
Updates - 5.9 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.29%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.2 M/s operations
Updates - 2.4 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.28%
5 mil entries
8-byte value
Lookups - 9.6 M/s operations
Updates - 5.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.30%
64-byte value
Lookups - 3.2 M/s operations
Updates - 2.7 M/s operations
False positive rate: 0.30%
Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211027234504.30744-5-joannekoong@fb.com
Turn ony libbpf 1.0 mode. Fix all the explicit IS_ERR checks that now will be
broken because libbpf returns NULL on error (and sets errno). Fix
ASSERT_OK_PTR and ASSERT_ERR_PTR to work for both old mode and new modes and
use them throughout selftests. This is trivial to do by using
libbpf_get_error() API that all libbpf users are supposed to use, instead of
IS_ERR checks.
A bunch of checks also did explicit -1 comparison for various fd-returning
APIs. Such checks are replaced with >= 0 or < 0 cases.
There were also few misuses of bpf_object__find_map_by_name() in test_maps.
Those are fixed in this patch as well.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210525035935.1461796-3-andrii@kernel.org
The test_overhead prog_test included an fmod_ret program that attached to
__set_task_comm() in the kernel. However, this function was never listed as
allowed for return modification, so this only worked because of the
verifier skipping tests when a trampoline already existed for the attach
point. Now that the verifier checks have been fixed, remove fmod_ret from
the test so it works again.
Fixes: 4eaf0b5c5e ("selftest/bpf: Fmod_ret prog and implement test_overhead as part of bench")
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Extend bench framework with ability to have benchmark-provided child argument
parser for custom benchmark-specific parameters. This makes bench generic code
modular and independent from any specific benchmark.
Also implement a set of benchmarks for new BPF ring buffer and existing perf
buffer. 4 benchmarks were implemented: 2 variations for each of BPF ringbuf
and perfbuf:,
- rb-libbpf utilizes stock libbpf ring_buffer manager for reading data;
- rb-custom implements custom ring buffer setup and reading code, to
eliminate overheads inherent in generic libbpf code due to callback
functions and the need to update consumer position after each consumed
record, instead of batching updates (due to pessimistic assumption that
user callback might take long time and thus could unnecessarily hold ring
buffer space for too long);
- pb-libbpf uses stock libbpf perf_buffer code with all the default
settings, though uses higher-performance raw event callback to minimize
unnecessary overhead;
- pb-custom implements its own custom consumer code to minimize any possible
overhead of generic libbpf implementation and indirect function calls.
All of the test support default, no data notification skipped, mode, as well
as sampled mode (with --rb-sampled flag), which allows to trigger epoll
notification less frequently and reduce overhead. As will be shown, this mode
is especially critical for perf buffer, which suffers from high overhead of
wakeups in kernel.
Otherwise, all benchamrks implement similar way to generate a batch of records
by using fentry/sys_getpgid BPF program, which pushes a bunch of records in
a tight loop and records number of successful and dropped samples. Each record
is a small 8-byte integer, to minimize the effect of memory copying with
bpf_perf_event_output() and bpf_ringbuf_output().
Benchmarks that have only one producer implement optional back-to-back mode,
in which record production and consumption is alternating on the same CPU.
This is the highest-throughput happy case, showing ultimate performance
achievable with either BPF ringbuf or perfbuf.
All the below scenarios are implemented in a script in
benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh. Tests were performed on 28-core/56-thread
Intel Xeon CPU E5-2680 v4 @ 2.40GHz CPU.
Single-producer, parallel producer
==================================
rb-libbpf 12.054 ± 0.320M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-custom 8.158 ± 0.118M/s (drops 0.001 ± 0.003M/s)
pb-libbpf 0.931 ± 0.007M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-custom 0.965 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
Single-producer, parallel producer, sampled notification
========================================================
rb-libbpf 11.563 ± 0.067M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-custom 15.895 ± 0.076M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-libbpf 9.889 ± 0.032M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-custom 9.866 ± 0.028M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
Single producer on one CPU, consumer on another one, both running at full
speed. Curiously, rb-libbpf has higher throughput than objectively faster (due
to more lightweight consumer code path) rb-custom. It appears that faster
consumer causes kernel to send notifications more frequently, because consumer
appears to be caught up more frequently. Performance of perfbuf suffers from
default "no sampling" policy and huge overhead that causes.
In sampled mode, rb-custom is winning very significantly eliminating too
frequent in-kernel wakeups, the gain appears to be more than 2x.
Perf buffer achieves even more impressive wins, compared to stock perfbuf
settings, with 10x improvements in throughput with 1:500 sampling rate. The
trade-off is that with sampling, application might not get next X events until
X+1st arrives, which is not always acceptable. With steady influx of events,
though, this shouldn't be a problem.
Overall, single-producer performance of ring buffers seems to be better no
matter the sampled/non-sampled modes, but it especially beats ring buffer
without sampling due to its adaptive notification approach.
Single-producer, back-to-back mode
==================================
rb-libbpf 15.507 ± 0.247M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf-sampled 14.692 ± 0.195M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-custom 21.449 ± 0.157M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-custom-sampled 20.024 ± 0.386M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-libbpf 1.601 ± 0.015M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-libbpf-sampled 8.545 ± 0.064M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-custom 1.607 ± 0.022M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-custom-sampled 8.988 ± 0.144M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
Here we test a back-to-back mode, which is arguably best-case scenario both
for BPF ringbuf and perfbuf, because there is no contention and for ringbuf
also no excessive notification, because consumer appears to be behind after
the first record. For ringbuf, custom consumer code clearly wins with 21.5 vs
16 million records per second exchanged between producer and consumer. Sampled
mode actually hurts a bit due to slightly slower producer logic (it needs to
fetch amount of data available to decide whether to skip or force notification).
Perfbuf with wakeup sampling gets 5.5x throughput increase, compared to
no-sampling version. There also doesn't seem to be noticeable overhead from
generic libbpf handling code.
Perfbuf back-to-back, effect of sample rate
===========================================
pb-sampled-1 1.035 ± 0.012M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-5 3.476 ± 0.087M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-10 5.094 ± 0.136M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-25 7.118 ± 0.153M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-50 8.169 ± 0.156M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-100 8.887 ± 0.136M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-250 9.180 ± 0.209M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-500 9.353 ± 0.281M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-1000 9.411 ± 0.217M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-2000 9.464 ± 0.167M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-sampled-3000 9.575 ± 0.273M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
This benchmark shows the effect of event sampling for perfbuf. Back-to-back
mode for highest throughput. Just doing every 5th record notification gives
3.5x speed up. 250-500 appears to be the point of diminishing return, with
almost 9x speed up. Most benchmarks use 500 as the default sampling for pb-raw
and pb-custom.
Ringbuf back-to-back, effect of sample rate
===========================================
rb-sampled-1 1.106 ± 0.010M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-5 4.746 ± 0.149M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-10 7.706 ± 0.164M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-25 12.893 ± 0.273M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-50 15.961 ± 0.361M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-100 18.203 ± 0.445M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-250 19.962 ± 0.786M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-500 20.881 ± 0.551M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-1000 21.317 ± 0.532M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-2000 21.331 ± 0.535M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-sampled-3000 21.688 ± 0.392M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
Similar benchmark for ring buffer also shows a great advantage (in terms of
throughput) of skipping notifications. Skipping every 5th one gives 4x boost.
Also similar to perfbuf case, 250-500 seems to be the point of diminishing
returns, giving roughly 20x better results.
Keep in mind, for this test, notifications are controlled manually with
BPF_RB_NO_WAKEUP and BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP. As can be seen from previous
benchmarks, adaptive notifications based on consumer's positions provides same
(or even slightly better due to simpler load generator on BPF side) benefits in
favorable back-to-back scenario. Over zealous and fast consumer, which is
almost always caught up, will make thoughput numbers smaller. That's the case
when manual notification control might prove to be extremely beneficial.
Ringbuf back-to-back, reserve+commit vs output
==============================================
reserve 22.819 ± 0.503M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
output 18.906 ± 0.433M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
Ringbuf sampled, reserve+commit vs output
=========================================
reserve-sampled 15.350 ± 0.132M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
output-sampled 14.195 ± 0.144M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
BPF ringbuf supports two sets of APIs with various usability and performance
tradeoffs: bpf_ringbuf_reserve()+bpf_ringbuf_commit() vs bpf_ringbuf_output().
This benchmark clearly shows superiority of reserve+commit approach, despite
using a small 8-byte record size.
Single-producer, consumer/producer competing on the same CPU, low batch count
=============================================================================
rb-libbpf 3.045 ± 0.020M/s (drops 3.536 ± 0.148M/s)
rb-custom 3.055 ± 0.022M/s (drops 3.893 ± 0.066M/s)
pb-libbpf 1.393 ± 0.024M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
pb-custom 1.407 ± 0.016M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
This benchmark shows one of the worst-case scenarios, in which producer and
consumer do not coordinate *and* fight for the same CPU. No batch count and
sampling settings were able to eliminate drops for ringbuffer, producer is
just too fast for consumer to keep up. But ringbuf and perfbuf still able to
pass through quite a lot of messages, which is more than enough for a lot of
applications.
Ringbuf, multi-producer contention
==================================
rb-libbpf nr_prod 1 10.916 ± 0.399M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 2 4.931 ± 0.030M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 3 4.880 ± 0.006M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 4 3.926 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 8 4.011 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 12 3.967 ± 0.016M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 16 2.604 ± 0.030M/s (drops 0.001 ± 0.002M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 20 2.233 ± 0.003M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 24 2.085 ± 0.015M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 28 2.055 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 32 1.962 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 36 2.089 ± 0.005M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 40 2.118 ± 0.006M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 44 2.105 ± 0.004M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 48 2.120 ± 0.058M/s (drops 0.000 ± 0.001M/s)
rb-libbpf nr_prod 52 2.074 ± 0.024M/s (drops 0.007 ± 0.014M/s)
Ringbuf uses a very short-duration spinlock during reservation phase, to check
few invariants, increment producer count and set record header. This is the
biggest point of contention for ringbuf implementation. This benchmark
evaluates the effect of multiple competing writers on overall throughput of
a single shared ringbuffer.
Overall throughput drops almost 2x when going from single to two
highly-contended producers, gradually dropping with additional competing
producers. Performance drop stabilizes at around 20 producers and hovers
around 2mln even with 50+ fighting producers, which is a 5x drop compared to
non-contended case. Good kernel implementation in kernel helps maintain decent
performance here.
Note, that in the intended real-world scenarios, it's not expected to get even
close to such a high levels of contention. But if contention will become
a problem, there is always an option of sharding few ring buffers across a set
of CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200529075424.3139988-5-andriin@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
It is sometimes desirable to be able to trigger BPF program from user-space
with minimal overhead. sys_enter would seem to be a good candidate, yet in
a lot of cases there will be a lot of noise from syscalls triggered by other
processes on the system. So while searching for low-overhead alternative, I've
stumbled upon getpgid() syscall, which seems to be specific enough to not
suffer from accidental syscall by other apps.
This set of benchmarks compares tp, raw_tp w/ filtering by syscall ID, kprobe,
fentry and fmod_ret with returning error (so that syscall would not be
executed), to determine the lowest-overhead way. Here are results on my
machine (using benchs/run_bench_trigger.sh script):
base : 9.200 ± 0.319M/s
tp : 6.690 ± 0.125M/s
rawtp : 8.571 ± 0.214M/s
kprobe : 6.431 ± 0.048M/s
fentry : 8.955 ± 0.241M/s
fmodret : 8.903 ± 0.135M/s
So it seems like fmodret doesn't give much benefit for such lightweight
syscall. Raw tracepoint is pretty decent despite additional filtering logic,
but it will be called for any other syscall in the system, which rules it out.
Fentry, though, seems to be adding the least amoung of overhead and achieves
97.3% of performance of baseline no-BPF-attached syscall.
Using getpgid() seems to be preferable to set_task_comm() approach from
test_overhead, as it's about 2.35x faster in a baseline performance.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200512192445.2351848-5-andriin@fb.com
Add fmod_ret BPF program to existing test_overhead selftest. Also re-implement
user-space benchmarking part into benchmark runner to compare results. Results
with ./bench are consistently somewhat lower than test_overhead's, but relative
performance of various types of BPF programs stay consisten (e.g., kretprobe is
noticeably slower). This slowdown seems to be coming from the fact that
test_overhead is single-threaded, while benchmark always spins off at least
one thread for producer. This has been confirmed by hacking multi-threaded
test_overhead variant and also single-threaded bench variant. Resutls are
below. run_bench_rename.sh script from benchs/ subdirectory was used to
produce results for ./bench.
Single-threaded implementations
===============================
/* bench: single-threaded, atomics */
base : 4.622 ± 0.049M/s
kprobe : 3.673 ± 0.052M/s
kretprobe : 2.625 ± 0.052M/s
rawtp : 4.369 ± 0.089M/s
fentry : 4.201 ± 0.558M/s
fexit : 4.309 ± 0.148M/s
fmodret : 4.314 ± 0.203M/s
/* selftest: single-threaded, no atomics */
task_rename base 4555K events per sec
task_rename kprobe 3643K events per sec
task_rename kretprobe 2506K events per sec
task_rename raw_tp 4303K events per sec
task_rename fentry 4307K events per sec
task_rename fexit 4010K events per sec
task_rename fmod_ret 3984K events per sec
Multi-threaded implementations
==============================
/* bench: multi-threaded w/ atomics */
base : 3.910 ± 0.023M/s
kprobe : 3.048 ± 0.037M/s
kretprobe : 2.300 ± 0.015M/s
rawtp : 3.687 ± 0.034M/s
fentry : 3.740 ± 0.087M/s
fexit : 3.510 ± 0.009M/s
fmodret : 3.485 ± 0.050M/s
/* selftest: multi-threaded w/ atomics */
task_rename base 3872K events per sec
task_rename kprobe 3068K events per sec
task_rename kretprobe 2350K events per sec
task_rename raw_tp 3731K events per sec
task_rename fentry 3639K events per sec
task_rename fexit 3558K events per sec
task_rename fmod_ret 3511K events per sec
/* selftest: multi-threaded, no atomics */
task_rename base 3945K events per sec
task_rename kprobe 3298K events per sec
task_rename kretprobe 2451K events per sec
task_rename raw_tp 3718K events per sec
task_rename fentry 3782K events per sec
task_rename fexit 3543K events per sec
task_rename fmod_ret 3526K events per sec
Note that the fact that ./bench benchmark always uses atomic increments for
counting, while test_overhead doesn't, doesn't influence test results all that
much.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200512192445.2351848-4-andriin@fb.com
While working on BPF ringbuf implementation, testing, and benchmarking, I've
developed a pretty generic and modular benchmark runner, which seems to be
generically useful, as I've already used it for one more purpose (testing
fastest way to trigger BPF program, to minimize overhead of in-kernel code).
This patch adds generic part of benchmark runner and sets up Makefile for
extending it with more sets of benchmarks.
Benchmarker itself operates by spinning up specified number of producer and
consumer threads, setting up interval timer sending SIGALARM signal to
application once a second. Every second, current snapshot with hits/drops
counters are collected and stored in an array. Drops are useful for
producer/consumer benchmarks in which producer might overwhelm consumers.
Once test finishes after given amount of warm-up and testing seconds, mean and
stddev are calculated (ignoring warm-up results) and is printed out to stdout.
This setup seems to give consistent and accurate results.
To validate behavior, I added two atomic counting tests: global and local.
For global one, all the producer threads are atomically incrementing same
counter as fast as possible. This, of course, leads to huge drop of
performance once there is more than one producer thread due to CPUs fighting
for the same memory location.
Local counting, on the other hand, maintains one counter per each producer
thread, incremented independently. Once per second, all counters are read and
added together to form final "counting throughput" measurement. As expected,
such setup demonstrates linear scalability with number of producers (as long
as there are enough physical CPU cores, of course). See example output below.
Also, this setup can nicely demonstrate disastrous effects of false sharing,
if care is not taken to take those per-producer counters apart into
independent cache lines.
Demo output shows global counter first with 1 producer, then with 4. Both
total and per-producer performance significantly drop. The last run is local
counter with 4 producers, demonstrating near-perfect scalability.
$ ./bench -a -w1 -d2 -p1 count-global
Setting up benchmark 'count-global'...
Benchmark 'count-global' started.
Iter 0 ( 24.822us): hits 148.179M/s (148.179M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 1 ( 37.939us): hits 149.308M/s (149.308M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 2 (-10.774us): hits 150.717M/s (150.717M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 3 ( 3.807us): hits 151.435M/s (151.435M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Summary: hits 150.488 ± 1.079M/s (150.488M/prod), drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s
$ ./bench -a -w1 -d2 -p4 count-global
Setting up benchmark 'count-global'...
Benchmark 'count-global' started.
Iter 0 ( 60.659us): hits 53.910M/s ( 13.477M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 1 (-17.658us): hits 53.722M/s ( 13.431M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 2 ( 5.865us): hits 53.495M/s ( 13.374M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 3 ( 0.104us): hits 53.606M/s ( 13.402M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Summary: hits 53.608 ± 0.113M/s ( 13.402M/prod), drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s
$ ./bench -a -w1 -d2 -p4 count-local
Setting up benchmark 'count-local'...
Benchmark 'count-local' started.
Iter 0 ( 23.388us): hits 640.450M/s (160.113M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 1 ( 2.291us): hits 605.661M/s (151.415M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 2 ( -6.415us): hits 607.092M/s (151.773M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Iter 3 ( -1.361us): hits 601.796M/s (150.449M/prod), drops 0.000M/s
Summary: hits 604.849 ± 2.739M/s (151.212M/prod), drops 0.000 ± 0.000M/s
Benchmark runner supports setting thread affinity for producer and consumer
threads. You can use -a flag for default CPU selection scheme, where first
consumer gets CPU #0, next one gets CPU #1, and so on. Then producer threads
pick up next CPU and increment one-by-one as well. But user can also specify
a set of CPUs independently for producers and consumers with --prod-affinity
1,2-10,15 and --cons-affinity <set-of-cpus>. The latter allows to force
producers and consumers to share same set of CPUs, if necessary.
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200512192445.2351848-3-andriin@fb.com
Martin KaFai Lau
Anton Protopopov
Dave Marchevsky
Feng Zhou
Yafang Shao
Andrii Nakryiko
Hou Tao
Joanne Koong
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Alexei Starovoitov
Andrii Nakryiko
Colin Ian King