[PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] bpf: htab: Reduce memory use of hash maps

"T.J. Mercier" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.kernel.bpf,gmane.linux.kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Memory is expensive and scarce these days. This series reduces the
memory use of BPF hash maps by eliminating the per-element overheads
below. This saves up to 50% of per-element memory use for standard and
PCPU hash maps. The memory use of LRU hash maps is unaffected.

Map Type & Configuration            | Old size | New size | Savings
------------------------------------|----------|----------|--------
Standard (key <= 8 B, val <= 8 B)   |   64 B   |   32 B   | 50.0%
Per-CPU (prealloc) (key <= 8 B)     |   64 B   |   32 B   | 50.0%
Per-CPU (non-prealloc) (key <= 8 B) |   64 B   |   40 B   | 37.5%
LRU (Any key/value size)            |    -     |    -     | 00.0%

1) Unused LRU / PCPU fields in standard and PCPU hash maps (patch 1)
struct htab_elem is used for all hash map types, and includes fields
that are not always used (bpf_lru_node, ptr_to_pptr). For standard
(non-LRU, non-PCPU) hash maps the 24 bytes for the bpf_lru_node (union)
are entirely overhead and can be eliminated. Non-preallocated PCPU maps
only need the 8 byte ptr_to_pptr which is currently unioned with the
unneeded 24 byte bpf_lru_node, so 16 bytes of overhead can be
eliminated. Preallocated PCPU maps don't need ptr_to_pptr, so 24 bytes
of overhead can be saved.

2) Hash caching for small keys (patch 2)
For hash maps with small key sizes (<= word size), comparing keys only
requires a single instruction. Currently the 4 byte hash value (8 byte
aligned and padded) is used for this, but offers no performance
advantage in this case and can be eliminated.

The implementation splits htab_elem into dedicated structures for the
different map types (htab_elem_lru, htab_elem_pcpu, htab_elem) which
share a common initial sequence, but contain additional map-type
specific fields where necessary. This means the placement of the key for
each element varies with the map type, and key_offset is added to
bpf_htab for this purpose.

While using key_offset and conditional hash checks adds new pointer
dereferences and branching during element traversal,
run_bench_htab_mem.sh shows no significant performance regression across
10 runs on my 3995WX.

Benchmark (all in kops/sec)  | Avg. Before | StDev | Avg. After | StDev
-----------------------------|-------------|-------|------------|------
prealloc overwrite           | 115.11      | 4.10  | 115.45     | 5.24
prealloc batch_add_batch_del | 127.14      | 4.32  | 127.06     | 2.32
prealloc add_del_on_diff_cpu | 23.22       | 0.93  | 22.91      | 1.60
normal overwrite             | 78.52       | 3.05  | 80.40      | 3.25
normal batch_add_batch_del   | 45.37       | 0.69  | 47.71      | 0.66
normal add_del_on_diff_cpu   | 12.02       | 0.73  | 12.48      | 0.70

---
Changes in v3:
From Sashiko on torn reads/writes:
Use a local unsigned long and READ_ONCE / WRITE_ONCE instead of memcmp /
memcpy for atomic key comparisons for hashless elements.

Changes in v2:
Make maximum key_size for !has_hash depend on word size for atomicity
on 32-bit.

From Mykyta Yatsenko:
Put the htab_elem* common initial sequence in its own struct (htab_node)
and reuse it across all element types that share it. Eliminate assocated
BUILD_BUG_ON additions.
Replace both the hash and key fields with data[].
Store has_hash in struct bpf_htab, and avoid per-element reads of it.

T.J. Mercier (2):
  bpf: htab: Split htab_elem_lru and htab_elem_pcpu off of htab_elem
  bpf: htab: Reduce elem_size by 8 bytes for small key sizes

 kernel/bpf/hashtab.c                          | 426 ++++++++++++------
 kernel/bpf/map_in_map.c                       |  13 +
 kernel/bpf/map_in_map.h                       |   2 +
 .../selftests/bpf/progs/map_ptr_kern.c        |   2 +-
 4 files changed, 299 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-)


base-commit: cfce77b63375dac81d53f2f85593c548415206b7
-- 
2.55.0.654.g21b8a5bc05-goog
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.