linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHES/RFC 1/5] perf bench uprobe + BPF skel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230721233219.9105d8e48d67e5eda3797e4e@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 23:32:19 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        Kate Carcia <kcarcia@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES/RFC 1/5] perf bench uprobe + BPF skel

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 17:49:05 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 	This adds a 'perf bench' to test the overhead of uprobes + BPF
> programs, for now just a few simple tests, but I plan to make it
> possible to specify the functions to attach the uprobe + BPF, other BPF
> operations dealing with maps, etc.
> 
> 	This is how it looks like now:
> 
>   [root@...e ~]# perf bench uprobe all
>   # Running uprobe/baseline benchmark...
>   # Executed 1,000 usleep(1000) calls
>        Total time: 1,053,963 usecs
>   
>    1,053.963 usecs/op
>   
>   # Running uprobe/empty benchmark...
>   # Executed 1,000 usleep(1000) calls
>        Total time: 1,056,293 usecs +2,330 to baseline
>   
>    1,056.293 usecs/op 2.330 usecs/op to baseline
>   
>   # Running uprobe/trace_printk benchmark...
>   # Executed 1,000 usleep(1000) calls
>        Total time: 1,056,977 usecs +3,014 to baseline +684 to previous
>   
>    1,056.977 usecs/op 3.014 usecs/op to baseline 0.684 usecs/op to previous
>   
>   [root@...e ~]

Looks great! maybe we can also make kprobes benchmark too (but it depends
on optimization and ftrace-based...)

Thank you,

> 
> I put it here:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=perf-bench-uprobe
> 
>   git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git perf-bench-uprobe
> 
> Further ideas, problems?
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> 
> 
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo (5):
>   perf bench uprobe: Add benchmark to test uprobe overhead
>   perf bench uprobe: Print diff to baseline
>   perf bench uprobe: Show diff to previous
>   perf bench uprobe empty: Add entry attaching an empty BPF program
>   perf bench uprobe trace_printk: Add entry attaching an BPF program that does a trace_printk
> 
>  tools/perf/Documentation/perf-bench.txt     |   3 +
>  tools/perf/Makefile.perf                    |   1 +
>  tools/perf/bench/Build                      |   1 +
>  tools/perf/bench/bench.h                    |   3 +
>  tools/perf/bench/uprobe.c                   | 198 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/perf/builtin-bench.c                  |   8 +
>  tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bench_uprobe.bpf.c |  23 +++
>  7 files changed, 237 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/bench/uprobe.c
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/bench_uprobe.bpf.c
> 
> -- 
> 2.41.0
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>