summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_common.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2022-06-22selftests/bpf: Add benchmark for local_storage getDave Marchevsky
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>
2021-11-30selftest/bpf/benchs: Add bpf_loop benchmarkJoanne Koong
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
2021-10-28bpf/benchs: Add benchmarks for comparing hashmap lookups w/ vs. w/out bloom ↵Joanne Koong
filter 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
2021-10-28bpf/benchs: Add benchmark tests for bloom filter throughput + false positiveJoanne Koong
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
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2025-08-02 10:08:43 +0000