[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f43e25d4f86cf567e06141f0408b0c4c169bd7ed.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:42:04 -0800
From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
To: Qiliang Yuan <realwujing@...il.com>, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
sdf@...ichev.me, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
yuanql9@...natelecom.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf/verifier: optimize ID mapping reset in
states_equal
On Fri, 2026-01-16 at 17:08 +0800, Qiliang Yuan wrote:
[...]
> Metric | Baseline | Patched | Delta
> ----------------|---------------|---------------|----------
> Iterations | 5710 | 5731 | +0.37%
> Instructions | 1.714 T | 1.555 T | -9.28%
> Inst/Iter | 300.2 M | 271.3 M | -9.63%
> Cycles | 1.436 T | 1.335 T | -7.03%
> Branches | 350.4 B | 311.9 B | -10.99%
> Migrations | 25,977 | 23,524 | -9.44%
>
> Test Command:
> seq 1 2000000 | sudo perf stat -a -- \
> timeout 60s xargs -P $(nproc) -I {} ./veristat access_map_in_map.bpf.o
[...]
As discussed in a separate thread, I don't think that system-wide
profiling is a good fit here. When using perf stat for collecting
pyperf180.bpf.o processing stats I don't see a big difference.
Regardless of specific statistics, I think this change should be landed.
> Suggested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
Please remove this 'Suggested-by', you found this change yourself,
Andrii suggested improving it further (this usually goes to a changelog).
> Suggested-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Qiliang Yuan <realwujing@...il.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists