netdev - Re: [PATCH] test_bpf: add a schedule point

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: <1519690325.3258.12.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:12:05 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test_bpf: add a schedule point

On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 21:11 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 02/26/2018 07:52 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > 
> > test_bpf() is taking 1.6 seconds nowadays, it is time
> > to add a schedule point in it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> 
> Applied to bpf tree, thanks Eric!

Thanks Daniel

Note that some BPF programs are quite expensive

[  173.447471] test_bpf: #264 BPF_MAXINSNS: Call heavy transformations jited:1 19248 18548 PASS
jited:1 12519 PASS
[  173.509228] test_bpf: #269 BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id jited:1 20896 PASS

So we can still consume ~200 ms per test, without cond_resched()

Maybe reducing MAX_TESTRUNS from 10000 to 1000 would be the next step ?