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 <[email protected]>
---
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);
return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0;
}
--
2.1.0
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:00 PM Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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.