Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 23:47:44 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc:     bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: call get_random_u32() for random integers
Message-ID: <Y451ENAK7BQQDJc/@zx2c4.com>
References: <20221205181534.612702-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <730fd355-ad86-a8fa-6583-df23d39e0c23@iogearbox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <730fd355-ad86-a8fa-6583-df23d39e0c23@iogearbox.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:21:51PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 12/5/22 7:15 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Since BPF's bpf_user_rnd_u32() was introduced, there have been three
> > significant developments in the RNG: 1) get_random_u32() returns the
> > same types of bytes as /dev/urandom, eliminating the distinction between
> > "kernel random bytes" and "userspace random bytes", 2) get_random_u32()
> > operates mostly locklessly over percpu state, 3) get_random_u32() has
> > become quite fast.
> 
> Wrt "quite fast", do you have a comparison between the two? Asking as its
> often used in networking worst case on per packet basis (e.g. via XDP), would
> be useful to state concrete numbers for the two on a given machine.

Median of 25 cycles vs median of 38, on my Tiger Lake machine. So a
little slower, but too small of a difference to matter.