[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzadf-k7vcDWm40yjpq7P4dYEr5pKTKsgthvWs_GqvoRNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:13:05 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 perf/core 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add 5-byte nop uprobe
trigger bench
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 1:37 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Add 5-byte nop uprobe trigger bench (x86_64 specific) to measure
> uprobes/uretprobes on top of nop5 instruction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 12 ++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_uprobes.sh | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
LGTM. Should we land this benchmark patch through the bpf-next tree?
It won't break anything, just will be slower until patch #1 gets into
bpf-next as well, which is fine.
Ingo or Peter, any objections to me routing this patch separately
through bpf-next?
But either way:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists