On 5/3/26 06:21, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Adding benchmark test that attaches to (almost) all allowed tracing
> functions and display attach/detach times.
>
> # ./test_progs -t tracing_multi_bench_attach -v
> bpf_testmod.ko is already unloaded.
> Loading bpf_testmod.ko...
> Successfully loaded bpf_testmod.ko.
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach:PASS:btf__load_vmlinux_btf 0 nsec
>
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach:PASS:tracing_multi_bench__open_and_load
> 0 nsec
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach:PASS:get_syms 0 nsec
>
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach:PASS:bpf_program__attach_tracing_multi
> 0 nsec
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach: found 51186 functions
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach: attached in 1.295s
> serial_test_tracing_multi_bench_attach: detached in 0.243s
> #507 tracing_multi_bench_attach:OK
> Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> Successfully unloaded bpf_testmod.ko.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c | 178 ++++++++++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_bench.c | 13 ++
> 2 files changed, 191 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_bench.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c
> index d64d90f4e086..585d6b646d20 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tracing_multi.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> #include "tracing_multi_intersect.skel.h"
> #include "tracing_multi_session.skel.h"
> #include "tracing_multi_fail.skel.h"
> +#include "tracing_multi_bench.skel.h"
> #include "trace_helpers.h"
>
> static __u64 bpf_fentry_test_cookies[] = {
> @@ -543,6 +544,183 @@ static void test_attach_api_fails(void)
> tracing_multi_fail__destroy(skel);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Skip several kernel symbols that might not be safe or could cause delays.
> + */
> +static bool skip_symbol(char *name)
> +{
> + if (!strcmp(name, "arch_cpu_idle"))
> + return true;
> + if (!strcmp(name, "default_idle"))
> + return true;
> + if (!strncmp(name, "rcu_", 4))
> + return true;
> + if (!strcmp(name, "bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func"))
> + return true;
> + if (strstr(name, "rcu"))
> + return true;
> + if (strstr(name, "trace"))
> + return true;
> + if (strstr(name, "irq"))
> + return true;
> + if (strstr(name, "bpf_lsm_"))
> + return true;
> + if (!strcmp(name, "migrate_enable"))
> + return true;
> + if (!strcmp(name, "migrate_disable"))
> + return true;
> + if (!strcmp(name, "preempt_count_sub"))
> + return true;
> + if (!strcmp(name, "preempt_count_add"))
> + return true;
> + return false;
> +}
These names intersect with the list in trace_helpers.c::skip_entry().
It would be better to move this list to trace_helpers.c.
> +
> +#define MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS 12
> +
> +static bool btf_type_is_modifier(const struct btf_type *t)
> +{
> + switch (BTF_INFO_KIND(t->info)) {
> + case BTF_KIND_TYPEDEF:
> + case BTF_KIND_VOLATILE:
> + case BTF_KIND_CONST:
> + case BTF_KIND_RESTRICT:
> + case BTF_KIND_TYPE_TAG:
> + return true;
> + }
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool is_allowed_func(const struct btf *btf, const struct btf_type *t)
> +{
> + const struct btf_type *proto;
> + const struct btf_param *args;
> + __u32 i, nargs;
> + __s64 ret;
> +
> + proto = btf_type_by_id(btf, t->type);
> + if (BTF_INFO_KIND(proto->info) != BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO)
> + return false;
> +
> + args = (const struct btf_param *)(proto + 1);
> + nargs = btf_vlen(proto);
> + if (nargs > MAX_BPF_FUNC_ARGS)
> + return false;
> +
> + t = btf__type_by_id(btf, proto->type);
> + while (t && btf_type_is_modifier(t))
> + t = btf__type_by_id(btf, t->type);
> +
> + if (btf_is_struct(t) || btf_is_union(t))
> + return false;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nargs; i++) {
> + /* No support for variable args */
> + if (i == nargs - 1 && args[i].type == 0)
> + return false;
> +
> + /* No support of struct argument size greater than 16 bytes */
> + ret = btf__resolve_size(btf, args[i].type);
> + if (ret < 0 || ret > 16)
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
NIT: can we avoid copy/pasting the code snippet from libbpf.c?
Thanks,
Leon
[...]
