Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Do not grab the bucket spinlock by default on
 htab batch ops
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com>,
        Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200214224302.229920-1-brianvv@google.com>
 <8ac06749-491f-9a77-3899-641b4f40afe2@fb.com>
 <63fa17bf-a109-65c1-6cc5-581dd84fc93b@iogearbox.net>
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Message-ID: <c8a8d5ca-9b97-68dc-4483-926fd6bddc95@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:34:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
In-Reply-To: <63fa17bf-a109-65c1-6cc5-581dd84fc93b@iogearbox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 79618f12-1b5a-4663-f908-08d7b49072ed
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2020 16:34:39.3582
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: 3j2o0nneNHq5F4baGGepmJyIJ4Gaq8lvl7Wj1BiA/xwshxaGuEhrz5p06o6v/NJu
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR15MB3354
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572
 definitions=2020-02-18_04:2020-02-18,2020-02-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 adultscore=0
 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0
 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0
 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002180121
X-FB-Internal: deliver
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 2/18/20 7:56 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 2/18/20 4:43 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>> On 2/14/20 2:43 PM, Brian Vazquez wrote:
>>> Grabbing the spinlock for every bucket even if it's empty, was causing
>>> significant perfomance cost when traversing htab maps that have only a
>>> few entries. This patch addresses the issue by checking first the
>>> bucket_cnt, if the bucket has some entries then we go and grab the
>>> spinlock and proceed with the batching.
>>>
>>> Tested with a htab of size 50K and different value of populated entries.
>>>
>>> Before:
>>>    Benchmark             Time(ns)        CPU(ns)
>>>    ---------------------------------------------
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/1       2759655        2752033
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/10      2933722        2930825
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/200     3171680        3170265
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/500     3639607        3635511
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/1000    4369008        4364981
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/5k     11171919       11134028
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/20k    69150080       69033496
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/39k   190501036      190226162
>>>
>>> After:
>>>    Benchmark             Time(ns)        CPU(ns)
>>>    ---------------------------------------------
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/1        202707         200109
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/10       213441         210569
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/200      478641         472350
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/500      980061         967102
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/1000    1863835        1839575
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/5k      8961836        8902540
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/20k    69761497       69322756
>>>    BM_DumpHashMap/39k   187437830      186551111
>>>
>>> Fixes: 057996380a42 ("bpf: Add batch ops to all htab bpf map")
>>> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> 
> I must probably be missing something, but how is this safe? Presume we
> traverse in the walk with bucket_cnt = 0. Meanwhile a different CPU added
> entries to this bucket since not locked. Same reader on the other CPU with
> bucket_cnt = 0 then starts to traverse the second
> hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_safe() unlocked e.g. deleting entries?

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, you are correct. If bucket_cnt is 0
and buck->lock is not held, we should skip the
    hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_safe(l, n, head, hash_node) {
       ...
    }
as another cpu may traverse the bucket in parallel by adding/deleting 
the elements.