On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 5:51 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 in bytes
> - program type
> - attach type
> - stack depth
>
> Signed-off-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
looks good besides the PATH_MAX use, let's fix that (plus a few
nitpicks with style).
pw-bot: cr
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> index e12ef953fba8..cda8c83ebf24 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/veristat.c
[...]
> @@ -688,6 +698,11 @@ 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"}, },
nit: "Prog size" -> "Program size", this is UI ;)
> + [JITED_SIZE] = { "Jited size", {"prog_size_jited"}, },
> + [STACK] = {"Stack depth", {"stack_depth", "stack"}, },
> + [PROG_TYPE] = { "Program type", {"prog_type"}, },
> + [ATTACH_TYPE] = { "Attach type", {"attach_type", }, },
> };
>
> static bool parse_stat_id_var(const char *name, size_t len, int *id,
> @@ -835,7 +850,8 @@ static char verif_log_buf[64 * 1024];
> static int parse_verif_log(char * const buf, size_t buf_sz, struct verif_stats *s)
> {
> const char *cur;
> - int pos, lines;
> + int pos, lines, sub_stack;
> + char *save_ptr, *token, stack[PATH_MAX + 1] = {'\0'};
PATH_MAX is both an overkill and is unrelated to stack depth string.
Let's just hard-code it to something like 256 or 512, and drop the
STR/_STR stuff
>
> buf[buf_sz - 1] = '\0';
>
> @@ -853,15 +869,24 @@ 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",
> &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 %" STR(PATH_MAX) "s", stack))
> + continue;
> + }
> + token = strtok_r(stack, "+", &save_ptr);
> + while (token && token - stack < PATH_MAX) {
why this PATH_MAX condition? I'm not following what we are guarding
against here, tbh
> + if (sscanf(token, "%d", &sub_stack) == 0)
> + break;
> + s->stats[STACK] += sub_stack;
> + token = strtok_r(NULL, "+", &save_ptr);
> + }
for the strtok_r() loop, see parse_stats(), I think it's nicer than
having to separate strtok_r() calls
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1146,8 +1171,11 @@ 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;
> + __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 +1224,14 @@ 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);
styling nit: I'd add an empty line here to separate multi-line
jited_size logic a bit
> + fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
> + memset(&info, 0, info_len);
styling nit: and I'd invert here to keep fd > 0 check right next to fd
= assignment
> + if (fd > 0 && bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(fd, &info, &info_len) == 0)
> + stats->stats[JITED_SIZE] = info.jited_prog_len;
> +
> parse_verif_log(buf, buf_sz, stats);
>
> if (env.verbose) {
> @@ -1309,6 +1345,11 @@ 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 +1564,27 @@ static void prepare_value(const struct verif_stats *s, enum stat_id id,
> else
> *str = s->stats[VERDICT] ? "success" : "failure";
> break;
> + case ATTACH_TYPE:
> + if (!s)
> + *str = "N/A";
> + else
> + *str = libbpf_bpf_attach_type_str(s->stats[ATTACH_TYPE]) ? : "N/A";
> + break;
> + case PROG_TYPE:
> + if (!s)
> + *str = "N/A";
> + else
> + *str = libbpf_bpf_prog_type_str(s->stats[PROG_TYPE]) ? : "N/A";
another nitpick: we normally have "?:" together without a space
between those characters
> + 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
>
