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
