Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220601084149.13097-1-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
 <20220601084149.13097-3-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> <CAADnVQ+qmvYK_Ttsjgo49Ga7paghicFg_O3=1sYZKbdps4877Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <041465f0-0fd3-fd39-0dac-8093a1c98c00@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <041465f0-0fd3-fd39-0dac-8093a1c98c00@bytedance.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 13:37:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+cCoH=DAoyLGtJ5HvdNVgFBgTW=wCHs1wvFQuwyhcWOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftest/bpf/benchs: Add bpf_map benchmark
To:     Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Xiongchun Duan <duanxiongchun@bytedance.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@bytedance.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:17 PM Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2022/6/1 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=885:53, Alexei Starovoitov =E5=86=99=
=E9=81=93:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:42 AM Feng zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> w=
rote:
> >> +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 =3D 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 =3D bpf_get_prandom_u32() % MAX_ENTRIES + MAX_ENTRIES;
> > What is the point of random ?
> > just key =3D MAX_ENTRIES would be the same, no?
> > or key =3D -1 ?
>
> If all threads on different cpu trigger sys_getpgid and lookup the same
> key, it will cause
> "ret =3D 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?