On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 1:50 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Add a benchmark to compare performance of > 1) uprobe; > 2) user program w/o args; > 3) user program w/ args; > 4) user program w/ args on random cpu. > Can you please add it to the existing benchmark runner instead, e.g., along the other bench_trigger benchmarks? No need to re-implement benchmark setup. And also that would also allow to compare existing ways of cheaply triggering a program vs this new _USER program? If the performance is not significantly better than other ways, do you think it still makes sense to add a new BPF program type? I think triggering KPROBE/TRACEPOINT from bpf_prog_test_run() would be very nice, maybe it's possible to add that instead of a new program type? Either way, let's see comparison with other program triggering mechanisms first. > Sample output: > > ./test_progs -t uprobe_vs_user_prog -v > test_uprobe_vs_user_prog:PASS:uprobe_vs_user_prog__open_and_load 0 nsec > test_uprobe_vs_user_prog:PASS:get_base_addr 0 nsec > test_uprobe_vs_user_prog:PASS:attach_uprobe 0 nsec > run_perf_test:PASS:uprobe 0 nsec > Each uprobe uses 1419 nanoseconds > run_perf_test:PASS:user_prog_no_args 0 nsec > Each user_prog_no_args uses 313 nanoseconds > run_perf_test:PASS:user_prog_with_args 0 nsec > Each user_prog_with_args uses 335 nanoseconds > run_perf_test:PASS:user_prog_with_args_on_cpu 0 nsec > Each user_prog_with_args_on_cpu uses 2821 nanoseconds > Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> > --- > .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_vs_user_prog.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++ > .../selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_vs_user_prog.c | 21 ++++ > 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_vs_user_prog.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/uprobe_vs_user_prog.c > [...]
