Re: [PATCHv7 bpf-next 0/3] xdp: add a new helper for dev map multicast support
From: Hangbin Liu <hidden>
Date: 2020-07-15 03:45:35
Also in:
bpf
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:12:59AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
quoted
quoted
with pktgen(pkt size 64) to compire with xdp_redirect_map(). Here is the test result(the veth peer has a dummy xdp program with XDP_DROP directly): Version | Test | Native | Generic 5.8 rc1 | xdp_redirect_map i40e->i40e | 10.0M | 1.9M 5.8 rc1 | xdp_redirect_map i40e->veth | 12.7M | 1.6M 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map i40e->i40e | 10.0M | 1.9M 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map i40e->veth | 12.3M | 1.6M 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map_multi i40e->i40e | 7.2M | 1.5M 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map_multi i40e->veth | 8.5M | 1.3M 5.8 rc1 + patch | xdp_redirect_map_multi i40e->i40e+veth | 3.0M | 0.98M The bpf_redirect_map_multi() is slower than bpf_redirect_map() as we loop the arrays and do clone skb/xdpf. The native path is slower than generic path as we send skbs by pktgen. So the result looks reasonable. Last but not least, thanks a lot to Jiri, Eelco, Toke and Jesper for suggestions and help on implementation. [0] https://xdp-project.net/#Handling-multicast v7: Fix helper flag check Limit the *ex_map* to use DEVMAP_HASH only and update function dev_in_exclude_map() to get better performance.Did it help? The performance numbers in the table above are the same as in v6...If there is only 1 entry in the exclude map, then the numbers should be about the same.
Yes, I didn't re-run the test. Because when do the testing, I use null exclude map + flag BPF_F_EXCLUDE_INGRESS. So the perf number should have no difference with last patch. Thanks Hangbin