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;
Message-ID: <6181d77a-66ed-76ff-35a4-b24134bc67fb@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:29:09 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] selftest/bpf/benchs: Add bpf_map benchmark
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.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>
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>
 <CAADnVQ+cCoH=DAoyLGtJ5HvdNVgFBgTW=wCHs1wvFQuwyhcWOw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQ+cCoH=DAoyLGtJ5HvdNVgFBgTW=wCHs1wvFQuwyhcWOw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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@bytedance.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@bytedance.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.