| Message ID | 1629774050-4048-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bpf-next,v2] bpf: test_bpf: Print total time of test in the summary | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for bpf-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 10 of 10 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 100 this patch: 100 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: line length of 87 exceeds 80 columns |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 100 this patch: 100 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
| bpf/vmtest | success | Kernel LATEST + selftests |
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:00 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> wrote: > > The total time of test is useful to compare the performance > when bpf_jit_enable is 0 or 1, so print it in the summary. > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> > --- > lib/test_bpf.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c > index 830a18e..37f49b7 100644 > --- a/lib/test_bpf.c > +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c > @@ -8627,9 +8627,10 @@ static int __run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, const void *data, > return ret; > } > > -static int run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, struct bpf_test *test) > +static int run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, struct bpf_test *test, u64 *run_one_time) > { > int err_cnt = 0, i, runs = MAX_TESTRUNS; > + u64 time = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < MAX_SUBTESTS; i++) { > void *data; > @@ -8663,8 +8664,12 @@ static int run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, struct bpf_test *test) > test->test[i].result); > err_cnt++; > } > + > + time += duration; > } > > + *run_one_time = time; > + > return err_cnt; > } > > @@ -8944,9 +8949,11 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void) > { > int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0; > int jit_cnt = 0, run_cnt = 0; > + u64 total_time = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { > struct bpf_prog *fp; > + u64 run_one_time; > int err; > > cond_resched(); > @@ -8971,7 +8978,7 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void) > if (fp->jited) > jit_cnt++; > > - err = run_one(fp, &tests[i]); > + err = run_one(fp, &tests[i], &run_one_time); > release_filter(fp, i); > > if (err) { > @@ -8981,10 +8988,12 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void) > pr_cont("PASS\n"); > pass_cnt++; > } > + > + total_time += run_one_time; > } > > - pr_info("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed]\n", > - pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt); > + pr_info("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed] in %llu nsec\n", > + pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt, total_time); > > return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; > } > @@ -9192,6 +9201,7 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) > { > int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0; > int jit_cnt = 0, run_cnt = 0; > + u64 total_time = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) { > struct tail_call_test *test = &tail_call_tests[i]; > @@ -9220,10 +9230,12 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) > pr_cont("ret %d != %d FAIL", ret, test->result); > err_cnt++; > } > + > + total_time += duration; > } > > - pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed]\n", > - __func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt); > + pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed] in %llu nsec\n", > + __func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt, total_time); I think it only adds noise. Pls use dedicated runners like selftests/bpf/bench for performance measurements. test_bpf.ko also does some.
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c index 830a18e..37f49b7 100644 --- a/lib/test_bpf.c +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c @@ -8627,9 +8627,10 @@ static int __run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, const void *data, return ret; } -static int run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, struct bpf_test *test) +static int run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, struct bpf_test *test, u64 *run_one_time) { int err_cnt = 0, i, runs = MAX_TESTRUNS; + u64 time = 0; for (i = 0; i < MAX_SUBTESTS; i++) { void *data; @@ -8663,8 +8664,12 @@ static int run_one(const struct bpf_prog *fp, struct bpf_test *test) test->test[i].result); err_cnt++; } + + time += duration; } + *run_one_time = time; + return err_cnt; } @@ -8944,9 +8949,11 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void) { int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0; int jit_cnt = 0, run_cnt = 0; + u64 total_time = 0; for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) { struct bpf_prog *fp; + u64 run_one_time; int err; cond_resched(); @@ -8971,7 +8978,7 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void) if (fp->jited) jit_cnt++; - err = run_one(fp, &tests[i]); + err = run_one(fp, &tests[i], &run_one_time); release_filter(fp, i); if (err) { @@ -8981,10 +8988,12 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void) pr_cont("PASS\n"); pass_cnt++; } + + total_time += run_one_time; } - pr_info("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed]\n", - pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt); + pr_info("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed] in %llu nsec\n", + pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt, total_time); return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; } @@ -9192,6 +9201,7 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) { int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0; int jit_cnt = 0, run_cnt = 0; + u64 total_time = 0; for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) { struct tail_call_test *test = &tail_call_tests[i]; @@ -9220,10 +9230,12 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs) pr_cont("ret %d != %d FAIL", ret, test->result); err_cnt++; } + + total_time += duration; } - pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed]\n", - __func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt); + pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed] in %llu nsec\n", + __func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt, total_time); return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0; }
The total time of test is useful to compare the performance when bpf_jit_enable is 0 or 1, so print it in the summary. Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> --- lib/test_bpf.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)