lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] bpf: add BPF_MAP_DUMP command to dump more than one entry per call
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:09 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com> wrote:
>
> This introduces a new command to retrieve multiple number of entries
> from a bpf map.
>
> This new command can be executed from the existing BPF syscall as
> follows:
>
> err = bpf(BPF_MAP_DUMP, union bpf_attr *attr, u32 size)
> using attr->dump.map_fd, attr->dump.prev_key, attr->dump.buf,
> attr->dump.buf_len
> returns zero or negative error, and populates buf and buf_len on
> succees
>
> This implementation is wrapping the existing bpf methods:
> map_get_next_key and map_lookup_elem
>
> Note that this implementation can be extended later to do dump and
> delete by extending map_lookup_and_delete_elem (currently it only works
> for bpf queue/stack maps) and either use a new flag in map_dump or a new
> command map_dump_and_delete.
>
> Results show that even with a 1-elem_size buffer, it runs ~40 faster

Why is the new command 40% faster with 1-elem_size buffer?

> than the current implementation, improvements of ~85% are reported when
> the buffer size is increased, although, after the buffer size is around
> 5% of the total number of entries there's no huge difference in
> increasing it.
>
> Tested:
> Tried different size buffers to handle case where the bulk is bigger, or
> the elements to retrieve are less than the existing ones, all runs read
> a map of 100K entries. Below are the results(in ns) from the different
> runs:
>
> buf_len_1: 69038725 entry-by-entry: 112384424 improvement
> 38.569134
> buf_len_2: 40897447 entry-by-entry: 111030546 improvement
> 63.165590
> buf_len_230: 13652714 entry-by-entry: 111694058 improvement
> 87.776687
> buf_len_5000: 13576271 entry-by-entry: 111101169 improvement
> 87.780263
> buf_len_73000: 14694343 entry-by-entry: 111740162 improvement
> 86.849542
> buf_len_100000: 13745969 entry-by-entry: 114151991 improvement
> 87.958187
> buf_len_234567: 14329834 entry-by-entry: 114427589 improvement
> 87.476941

It took me a while to figure out the meaning of 87.476941. It is probably
a good idea to say 87.5% instead.

Thanks,
Song

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-24 21:21    [W:0.130 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site