[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQKmUE3_5RHDFLmKzNSDkLD=Z2g3bkfT2aRsPkFiMPd-4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:52:28 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Menglong Dong <dongml2@...natelecom.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3] bpf: make the attach target more accurate
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 12:10 AM Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
> } else {
> - addr = kallsyms_lookup_name(tname);
> + ret = bpf_lookup_attach_addr(NULL, tname, &addr);
> }
Not sure why your benchmarking doesn't show the difference,
but above is a big regression.
kallsyms_lookup_name() is a binary search whereas your
bpf_lookup_attach_addr() is linear.
You should see a massive degradation in multi-kprobe attach speeds.
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists