selftests/bpf: Add resizable hashmap to benchmarks

Support resizable hashmap in BPF map benchmarks.

1. LOOKUP  (single producer, M events/sec)

  key | max | nr    |    htab |   rhtab | ratio | delta
  ----+-----+-------+---------+---------+-------+-------
    8 |  1K |   750 |   99.85 |   81.92 | 0.82x |  -18 %
    8 |  1K |    1K |  100.71 |   80.19 | 0.80x |  -20 %
    8 |  1M |  750K |   23.37 |   72.09 | 3.08x | +208 %
    8 |  1M |    1M |   13.39 |   53.72 | 4.01x | +301 %
   32 |  1K |   750 |   51.57 |   42.78 | 0.83x |  -17 %
   32 |  1K |    1K |   50.81 |   45.83 | 0.90x |  -10 %
   32 |  1M |  750K |   11.27 |   15.29 | 1.36x |  +36 %
   32 |  1M |    1M |    7.32 |    8.75 | 1.19x |  +19 %
  256 |  1K |   750 |    7.58 |    7.88 | 1.04x |   +4 %
  256 |  1K |    1K |    7.43 |    7.81 | 1.05x |   +5 %
  256 |  1M |  750K |    3.69 |    4.27 | 1.16x |  +16 %
  256 |  1M |    1M |    2.60 |    3.12 | 1.20x |  +20 %

Pattern:
  * Small map (1K): htab wins for 8 / 32 byte keys by 10-20%
  * Large map (1M): rhtab wins everywhere, up to 4x at high load
    factor with 8 byte keys.
  * Higher load factor amplifies rhtab's lead: rhtab grows the
    bucket array; htab stays at user-declared max.

2. FULL UPDATE  (M events/sec per producer)

  htab  per-producer:
    20.33   22.02   19.27   23.61   24.18   23.17   21.07
    mean  21.94   range  19.27 - 24.18

  rhtab per-producer:
   133.51  129.47   74.52  129.29  102.26  129.98  107.64
    mean 115.24   range  74.52 - 133.51

  speedup (mean): 5.25x   (+425 %)

In-place memcpy avoids the per-update alloc + RCU pointer swap
that htab pays.

3. MEMORY

  value_size |  htab ops/s | rhtab ops/s | htab mem | rhtab mem
  -----------+-------------+-------------+----------+----------
       32 B  |  122.87 k/s |  133.04 k/s | 2.47 MiB | 2.49 MiB
     4096 B  |   64.43 k/s |   65.38 k/s | 6.74 MiB | 6.44 MiB
  rhtab/htab :  +8 % ops, +0.8 % mem   (32 B)
                +1 % ops,  -4  % mem (4096 B)

Throughput effectively tied

SUMMARY

  * Small / well-fitting map: htab is faster (cache-friendly
    fixed bucket array), but only by ~10-20 %.
  * Large / high-load-factor map: rhtab is dramatically faster
    (1.2x to 4x) because rhashtable resizes to keep the load
    factor sane while htab stays stuck at user-declared max.
  * Update-heavy workloads: rhtab is ~5x faster per producer
    via in-place memcpy.
  * Memory benchmark: effectively on par.

Signed-off-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260605-rhash-v7-12-5b8e05f8630d@meta.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions