[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2FFDA2FF-55D3-41EC-8D6C-34A7D1C93025@fb.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 22:37:06 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
CC: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kernel Team" <Kernel-team@...com>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"arnaldo.melo@...il.com" <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/2] bpftool: introduce "prog profile" command
> On Feb 29, 2020, at 7:52 PM, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/20 3:40 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>> With fentry/fexit programs, it is possible to profile BPF program with
>> hardware counters. Introduce bpftool "prog profile", which measures key
>> metrics of a BPF program.
>> bpftool prog profile command creates per-cpu perf events. Then it attaches
>> fentry/fexit programs to the target BPF program. The fentry program saves
>> perf event value to a map. The fexit program reads the perf event again,
>> and calculates the difference, which is the instructions/cycles used by
>> the target program.
>> Example input and output:
>> ./bpftool prog profile 3 id 337 cycles instructions llc_misses
>> 4228 run_cnt
>> 3403698 cycles (84.08%)
>> 3525294 instructions # 1.04 insn per cycle (84.05%)
>> 13 llc_misses # 3.69 LLC misses per million isns (83.50%)
>> This command measures cycles and instructions for BPF program with id
>> 337 for 3 seconds. The program has triggered 4228 times. The rest of the
>> output is similar to perf-stat. In this example, the counters were only
>> counting ~84% of the time because of time multiplexing of perf counters.
>> Note that, this approach measures cycles and instructions in very small
>> increments. So the fentry/fexit programs introduce noticeable errors to
>> the measurement results.
>> The fentry/fexit programs are generated with BPF skeletons. Therefore, we
>> build bpftool twice. The first time _bpftool is built without skeletons.
>> Then, _bpftool is used to generate the skeletons. The second time, bpftool
>> is built with skeletons.
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
>> ---
>> tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile | 18 +
>> tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 428 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>> tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/profiler.bpf.c | 171 +++++++++
>> tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/profiler.h | 47 +++
>> tools/scripts/Makefile.include | 1 +
>> 5 files changed, 664 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/profiler.bpf.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/bpf/bpftool/skeleton/profiler.h
>> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
>> index c4e810335810..c035fc107027 100644
>> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/Makefile
>> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ LIBS = $(LIBBPF) -lelf -lz
>> INSTALL ?= install
>> RM ?= rm -f
>> +CLANG ?= clang
>> FEATURE_USER = .bpftool
>> FEATURE_TESTS = libbfd disassembler-four-args reallocarray zlib
>> @@ -110,6 +111,22 @@ SRCS += $(BFD_SRCS)
>> endif
>> OBJS = $(patsubst %.c,$(OUTPUT)%.o,$(SRCS)) $(OUTPUT)disasm.o
>> +_OBJS = $(filter-out $(OUTPUT)prog.o,$(OBJS)) $(OUTPUT)_prog.o
>> +
>> +$(OUTPUT)_prog.o: prog.c
>> + $(QUIET_CC)$(COMPILE.c) -MMD -DBPFTOOL_WITHOUT_SKELETONS -o $@ $<
>> +
>> +$(OUTPUT)_bpftool: $(_OBJS) $(LIBBPF)
>> + $(QUIET_LINK)$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(_OBJS) $(LIBS)
>> +
>> +skeleton/profiler.bpf.o: skeleton/profiler.bpf.c
>> + $(QUIET_CLANG)$(CLANG) -g -O2 -target bpf -c $< -o $@
>
> With a fresh checkout, applying this patch and just selftests like
> make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf
>
> I got the following build error:
>
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/data/users/yhs/work/net-next/tools/lib/bpf'
> clang -g -O2 -target bpf -c skeleton/profiler.bpf.c -o skeleton/profiler.bpf.o
> skeleton/profiler.bpf.c:5:10: fatal error: 'bpf/bpf_helpers.h' file not found
> #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1 error generated.
> make[1]: *** [skeleton/profiler.bpf.o] Error 1
>
> I think Makefile should be tweaked to avoid selftest failure.
Hmm... I am not seeing this error. The build succeeded in the test.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists