Message ID | 20240812004503.43206-1-danieltimlee@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | samples/bpf: Remove obsolete tracing-related tests | expand |
On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 5:45 PM Daniel T. Lee <danieltimlee@gmail.com> wrote: > > The BPF tracing infrastructure has undergone significant evolution, > leading to the introduction of more robust and efficient APIs. > However, some of the existing tests in the samples/bpf directory have > not kept pace with these developments. These outdated tests not only > create confusion among users but also increase maintenance overhead. > > For starter, this patchset focuses on cleaning up outdated 'tracing' > related tests within the BPF testing framework. The goal is to > modernize and streamline selftests by removing obsolete tests and > migrating necessaries to more appropriate locations. > > Daniel T. Lee (3): > selftests/bpf: migrate tracepoint overhead test to prog_tests > selftests/bpf: add rename tracepoint bench test > samples/bpf: remove obsolete tracing related tests > We already have tracepoint-specific benchmark (see benchs/bench_trigger.c), try `./bench trig-tp` (it will pretty recent kernel due to reliance on bpf_modify_return_test_tp() kfunc). So maybe instead of adding code to selftests, let's just remove it from both samples/bpf and prog_tests' test_overhead? Either way test_overhead isn't very representative anymore, given big chunk of its overhead is in write() syscall? > samples/bpf/Makefile | 12 - > samples/bpf/test_overhead_kprobe.bpf.c | 41 ---- > samples/bpf/test_overhead_raw_tp.bpf.c | 17 -- > samples/bpf/test_overhead_tp.bpf.c | 23 -- > samples/bpf/test_overhead_user.c | 225 ------------------ > samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh | 16 -- > samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user.bpf.c | 52 ---- > samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user_user.c | 108 --------- > samples/bpf/tracex7.bpf.c | 15 -- > samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c | 56 ----- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 2 + > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c | 16 ++ > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_rename.sh | 2 +- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_overhead.c | 14 +- > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_overhead.c | 11 +- > 15 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 571 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_kprobe.bpf.c > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_raw_tp.bpf.c > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_tp.bpf.c > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_user.c > delete mode 100755 samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user.bpf.c > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user_user.c > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/tracex7.bpf.c > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c > > -- > 2.43.0 >
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 6:17 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 5:45 PM Daniel T. Lee <danieltimlee@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The BPF tracing infrastructure has undergone significant evolution, > > leading to the introduction of more robust and efficient APIs. > > However, some of the existing tests in the samples/bpf directory have > > not kept pace with these developments. These outdated tests not only > > create confusion among users but also increase maintenance overhead. > > > > For starter, this patchset focuses on cleaning up outdated 'tracing' > > related tests within the BPF testing framework. The goal is to > > modernize and streamline selftests by removing obsolete tests and > > migrating necessaries to more appropriate locations. > > > > Daniel T. Lee (3): > > selftests/bpf: migrate tracepoint overhead test to prog_tests > > selftests/bpf: add rename tracepoint bench test > > samples/bpf: remove obsolete tracing related tests > > > > We already have tracepoint-specific benchmark (see > benchs/bench_trigger.c), try `./bench trig-tp` (it will pretty recent > kernel due to reliance on bpf_modify_return_test_tp() kfunc). > > So maybe instead of adding code to selftests, let's just remove it > from both samples/bpf and prog_tests' test_overhead? Either way > test_overhead isn't very representative anymore, given big chunk of > its overhead is in write() syscall? > Thanks for the insight! I'll just drop these two and resend them. > > samples/bpf/Makefile | 12 - > > samples/bpf/test_overhead_kprobe.bpf.c | 41 ---- > > samples/bpf/test_overhead_raw_tp.bpf.c | 17 -- > > samples/bpf/test_overhead_tp.bpf.c | 23 -- > > samples/bpf/test_overhead_user.c | 225 ------------------ > > samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh | 16 -- > > samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user.bpf.c | 52 ---- > > samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user_user.c | 108 --------- > > samples/bpf/tracex7.bpf.c | 15 -- > > samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c | 56 ----- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 2 + > > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_rename.c | 16 ++ > > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_rename.sh | 2 +- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_overhead.c | 14 +- > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_overhead.c | 11 +- > > 15 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 571 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_kprobe.bpf.c > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_raw_tp.bpf.c > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_tp.bpf.c > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_overhead_user.c > > delete mode 100755 samples/bpf/test_override_return.sh > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user.bpf.c > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/test_probe_write_user_user.c > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/tracex7.bpf.c > > delete mode 100644 samples/bpf/tracex7_user.c > > > > -- > > 2.43.0 > >