Thread (2 messages) 2 messages, 2 authors, 2021-08-24

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: test_bpf: Print total time of test in the summary

From: Alexei Starovoitov <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-24 22:20:17
Also in: lkml, netdev

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:00 PM Tiezhu Yang [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help