rustls/ci-bench

CI Bench

This crate is meant for CI benchmarking. It has two modes of operation:

1. Measure CPU instructions using cachegrind.
2. Measure wall-time (runs each benchmark multiple times, leaving it to the caller to do statistical analysis).

Usage

You can get detailed usage information through cargo run --release -- --help. Below are the most important bits.

Running all benchmarks in instruction count mode

Note: this step requires having valgrind in your path.

Use cargo run --release -- run-all --output-dir foo to generate the results inside the foo directory. Within that directory, you will find an icounts.csv file with the instruction counts for the different scenarios we support. It should look like the following:

handshake_no_resume_1.2_rsa_aes_server,11327015
handshake_no_resume_1.2_rsa_aes_client,4314952
handshake_session_id_1.2_rsa_aes_server,11342136
handshake_session_id_1.2_rsa_aes_client,4327564
handshake_tickets_1.2_rsa_aes_server,11347746
handshake_tickets_1.2_rsa_aes_client,4331424
transfer_no_resume_1.2_rsa_aes_server,8775780
transfer_no_resume_1.2_rsa_aes_client,8818847
handshake_no_resume_1.3_rsa_aes_server,11517007
handshake_no_resume_1.3_rsa_aes_client,4212770
...
... rest omitted for brevity
...

In the cachegrind subdirectory you will find output files emitted by the cachegrind tool, which are useful to report detailed instruction count differences when comparing two benchmark runs. This subdirectory also contains log information from cachegrind itself (in .log files), which can be used to diagnose unexpected cachegrind crashes.

Running all benchmarks in wall-time mode

Use cargo run --release -- walltime --iterations-per-scenario 3 to print the CSV results to stdout (we use 3 iterations here for demonstration purposes, but recommend 100 iterations to deal with noise). The output should look like the following (one column per iteration):

handshake_no_resume_ring_1.2_rsa_aes,6035261,1714158,977368
handshake_session_id_ring_1.2_rsa_aes,1537632,2445849,1766888
handshake_tickets_ring_1.2_rsa_aes,1553743,2418286,1636431
transfer_no_resume_ring_1.2_rsa_aes,10192862,10374258,8988854
handshake_no_resume_ring_1.3_rsa_aes,1010150,1400602,936029
...
... rest omitted for brevity
...

Comparing results from an instruction count benchmark run

Use cargo run --release -- compare foo bar. It will output a report using GitHub-flavored markdown (used by the CI itself to give feedback about PRs). We currently consider differences of 0.2% to be significant, but might tweak it in the future after we gain experience with the benchmarking setup.

Supported scenarios

We benchmark the following scenarios:

• Handshake without resumption (handshake_no_resume)
• Handshake with ticket resumption (handshake_tickets)
• Handshake with session id resumption (handshake_session_id)
• Encrypt, transfer and decrypt 1MB of data sent by the server (transfer_no_resume)

The scenarios are benchmarked with different TLS versions, certificate key types and cipher suites. CPU counts are measured independently for the server side and for the client side. Hence, we end up with names like transfer_no_resume_1.3_rsa_aes_client.

Internals

We have made an effort to heavily document the source code of the benchmarks. In addition to that, here are some high-level considerations that can help you hack on the crate.

Environment configuration

An important goal of this benchmarking setup is that it should run with minimal noise. Measuring CPU instructions using cachegrind yields excellent results, regardless of your environment. The wall-time benchmarks, however, require a more elaborate benchmarking environment: running them on a laptop is too noisy, but running them on a carefully configured bare-metal server yields accurate measurements (up to 1% resolution, according to our tests).

Instruction count mode

Using cachegrind has some architectural consequences because it operates at the process level (i.e. it can count CPU instructions for a whole process, but not for a single function). The most important consequences when running in instruction count mode are:

• Since we want to measure server and client instruction counts separately, the benchmark runner spawns two child processes for each benchmark (one for the client, one for the server) and pipes their stdio to each other for communication (i.e. stdio acts as the transport layer).
• There is a no-op "benchmark" that measures the overhead of starting up the child process, so we can subtract it from the instruction count of the real benchmarks and reduce noise.
• Since we want to measure individual portions of code (e.g. data transfer after the handshake), there is a mechanism to subtract the instructions that are part of a benchmark's setup. Specifically, a benchmark can be configured to have another benchmark's instruction count subtracted from it. We are currently using this to subtract the handshake instructions from the data transfer benchmark.

If you need to debug benchmarks in instruction count mode, here are a few tricks that might help:

• For printf debugging, you should use eprintln!, because child processes use stdio as the transport for the TLS connection (i.e. if you print something to stdout, you won't even see it and the other side of the connection will choke on it).
• When using a proper debugger, remember that each side of the connection runs as a child process.

Wall-time mode

To increase determinism, it is important that wall-time mode benchmarks run in a single process and thread. All IO is done in-memory and there is no complex setup like in the case of the instruction counting mode. Because of this, the easiest way to debug the crate is by running the benchmarks in wall-time mode.

Code reuse between benchmarking modes

Originally, we only supported the instruction count mode, implemented using blocking IO. Even though the code was generic over the Reader and Writer, it could not be reused for the wall-time mode because it was blocking (e.g. if the client side of the connection is waiting for a read, the thread is blocked and the server never gets a chance to write).

The solution was to:

1. Rewrite the IO code to use async / await.
2. Keep using blocking operations under the hood in instruction-count mode, disguised as Futures that complete after a single poll. This way we avoid using an async runtime, which could introduce non-determinism.
3. Use non-blocking operations under the hood in wall-time mode, which simulate IO through shared in-memory buffers. The server and client Futures are polled in turns, so again we we avoid pulling in an async runtime and keep things as deterministic as possible.

Why measure CPU instructions

This technique has been successfully used in tracking the Rust compiler's performance, and is known to work well when comparing two versions of the same code. It has incredibly low noise, and therefore makes for a very good metric for automatic PR checking (i.e. the automatic check will reliably identify significant performance changes).

It is not possible to deduce the exact change in runtime based on the instruction count difference (e.g. a 5% increase in instructions does not necessarily result in a 5% increase in runtime). However, if there is a significant change in instruction count, you can be fairly confident there is a significant change in runtime too. This is very useful information to have when reviewing a PR.

For more information, including the alternatives we considered, check out [this comment] (https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/1385#issuecomment-1668023152) in the issue tracker.