On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 11:34 AM Mykyta Yatsenko
<mykyta.yatsenko5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Extend veristat to collect and print more stats, namely:
> - program size in instructions
> - jited program size
> - program type
> - attach type
> - stack depth
>
> Signed-off-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> index e12ef953fba8..0d7fb00175e8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> @@ -38,8 +38,14 @@ enum stat_id {
> FILE_NAME,
> PROG_NAME,
>
> + SIZE,
> + JITED_SIZE,
> + STACK,
> + PROG_TYPE,
> + ATTACH_TYPE,
> +
> ALL_STATS_CNT,
> - NUM_STATS_CNT = FILE_NAME - VERDICT,
> + NUM_STATS_CNT = ATTACH_TYPE - VERDICT + 1,
this doesn't sound right, because PROG_NAME isn't a number statistics
> };
>
> /* In comparison mode each stat can specify up to four different values:
> @@ -640,19 +646,22 @@ static int append_filter_file(const char *path)
> }
>
> static const struct stat_specs default_output_spec = {
> - .spec_cnt = 7,
> + .spec_cnt = 12,
> .ids = {
> FILE_NAME, PROG_NAME, VERDICT, DURATION,
> - TOTAL_INSNS, TOTAL_STATES, PEAK_STATES,
> + TOTAL_INSNS, TOTAL_STATES, PEAK_STATES, SIZE,
> + JITED_SIZE, PROG_TYPE, ATTACH_TYPE, STACK,
I think SIZE or JITED_SIZE might be good candidates for default view,
but not all of the above. I think we can also drop PEAK_STATES from
default, btw.
> },
> };
>
> static const struct stat_specs default_csv_output_spec = {
> - .spec_cnt = 9,
> + .spec_cnt = 14,
> .ids = {
> FILE_NAME, PROG_NAME, VERDICT, DURATION,
> TOTAL_INSNS, TOTAL_STATES, PEAK_STATES,
> MAX_STATES_PER_INSN, MARK_READ_MAX_LEN,
> + SIZE, JITED_SIZE, PROG_TYPE, ATTACH_TYPE,
> + STACK,
this is fine, we want everything in CSV, yep
> },
> };
>
> @@ -688,6 +697,11 @@ static struct stat_def {
> [PEAK_STATES] = { "Peak states", {"peak_states"}, },
> [MAX_STATES_PER_INSN] = { "Max states per insn", {"max_states_per_insn"}, },
> [MARK_READ_MAX_LEN] = { "Max mark read length", {"max_mark_read_len", "mark_read"}, },
> + [SIZE] = { "Prog size", {"prog_size", "size"}, },
drop "size" alias, it's too ambiguous?
> + [JITED_SIZE] = { "Jited size", {"jited_size"}, },
this probably should be prog_size_jited or something like that (I
know, verbose, but unambiguous)
> + [STACK] = {"Stack depth", {"stack_depth", "stack"}, },
> + [PROG_TYPE] = { "Program type", {"program_type", "prog_type"}, },
let's drop "program_type", verbose
> + [ATTACH_TYPE] = { "Attach type", {"attach_type", }, },
> };
>
> static bool parse_stat_id_var(const char *name, size_t len, int *id,
> @@ -853,13 +867,16 @@ static int parse_verif_log(char * const buf, size_t buf_sz, struct verif_stats *
>
> if (1 == sscanf(cur, "verification time %ld usec\n", &s->stats[DURATION]))
> continue;
> - if (6 == sscanf(cur, "processed %ld insns (limit %*d) max_states_per_insn %ld total_states %ld peak_states %ld mark_read %ld",
> + if (5 == sscanf(cur, "processed %ld insns (limit %*d) max_states_per_insn %ld total_states %ld peak_states %ld mark_read %ld",
is this a preexisting bug? why we didn't catch it before?
> &s->stats[TOTAL_INSNS],
> &s->stats[MAX_STATES_PER_INSN],
> &s->stats[TOTAL_STATES],
> &s->stats[PEAK_STATES],
> &s->stats[MARK_READ_MAX_LEN]))
> continue;
> +
> + if (1 == sscanf(cur, "stack depth %ld", &s->stats[STACK]))
heh, not so simple, actually. stack depth is actually a list of stack
sizes for main program and each subprogram. Try
sudo ./veristat test_subprogs.bpf.o -v
stack depth 8+8+0+0+8+0
so we have to make some choices here, actually... we either parse that
and add up, and/or we parse all that and associate it with individual
subprograms.
I think we can start with the former, but the latter is actually
useful and quite tricky for humans to figure out because that order
depends on libbpf-controlled order of subprograms (which veristat can
get from btf_ext, I believe). Not sure if we need/want to record
by-subprog breakdown into CSV, but it would be useful to have a more
detailed breakdown by subprog in some verbose mode. Let's think about
that.
> + continue;
> }
>
> return 0;
> @@ -1146,8 +1163,11 @@ static int process_prog(const char *filename, struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf
> char *buf;
> int buf_sz, log_level;
> struct verif_stats *stats;
> + struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
this should be initialized with memset(0)
> + __u32 info_len = sizeof(info);
> int err = 0;
> void *tmp;
> + int fd;
>
> if (!should_process_file_prog(base_filename, bpf_program__name(prog))) {
> env.progs_skipped++;
> @@ -1196,6 +1216,13 @@ static int process_prog(const char *filename, struct bpf_object *obj, struct bpf
> stats->file_name = strdup(base_filename);
> stats->prog_name = strdup(bpf_program__name(prog));
> stats->stats[VERDICT] = err == 0; /* 1 - success, 0 - failure */
> + stats->stats[SIZE] = bpf_program__insn_cnt(prog);
> + stats->stats[PROG_TYPE] = bpf_program__type(prog);
> + stats->stats[ATTACH_TYPE] = bpf_program__expected_attach_type(prog);
> + fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
> + if (fd > 0 && bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(fd, &info, &info_len) == 0)
> + stats->stats[JITED_SIZE] = info.jited_prog_len;
> +
please check that this is total length including all the subprogs
> parse_verif_log(buf, buf_sz, stats);
>
> if (env.verbose) {
> @@ -1309,6 +1336,11 @@ static int cmp_stat(const struct verif_stats *s1, const struct verif_stats *s2,
> case PROG_NAME:
> cmp = strcmp(s1->prog_name, s2->prog_name);
> break;
> + case ATTACH_TYPE:
> + case PROG_TYPE:
> + case SIZE:
> + case JITED_SIZE:
> + case STACK:
> case VERDICT:
> case DURATION:
> case TOTAL_INSNS:
> @@ -1523,12 +1555,21 @@ static void prepare_value(const struct verif_stats *s, enum stat_id id,
> else
> *str = s->stats[VERDICT] ? "success" : "failure";
> break;
> + case ATTACH_TYPE:
> + *str = s ? libbpf_bpf_attach_type_str(s->stats[ATTACH_TYPE]) ? : "N/A" : "N/A";
> + break;
> + case PROG_TYPE:
> + *str = s ? libbpf_bpf_prog_type_str(s->stats[PROG_TYPE]) ? : "N/A" : "N/A";
let's not have x ? y ? z pattern, please do explicit outer if like we
do for VERDICT
pw-bot: cr
> + break;
> case DURATION:
> case TOTAL_INSNS:
> case TOTAL_STATES:
> case PEAK_STATES:
> case MAX_STATES_PER_INSN:
> case MARK_READ_MAX_LEN:
> + case STACK:
> + case SIZE:
> + case JITED_SIZE:
> *val = s ? s->stats[id] : 0;
> break;
> default:
> --
> 2.47.1
>
