All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] selftests/seccomp: Pin benchmark to single CPU
Date: Tue,  6 Feb 2024 06:12:38 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240206141234.it.656-kees@kernel.org> (raw)

The seccomp benchmark test (for validating the benefit of bitmaps) can
be sensitive to scheduling speed, so pin the process to a single CPU,
which appears to significantly improve reliability, and loosen the
"close enough" checking to allow up to 10% variance instead of 1%.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202402061002.3a8722fd-oliver.sang@intel.com
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
v2:
 - improve comment about selecting CPU (broonie)
 - loosen variance check from 1% to 10%
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240206095642.work.502-kees@kernel.org/
---
 .../selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
index 5b5c9d558dee..9d7aa5a730e0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c
@@ -4,7 +4,9 @@
  */
 #define _GNU_SOURCE
 #include <assert.h>
+#include <err.h>
 #include <limits.h>
+#include <sched.h>
 #include <stdbool.h>
 #include <stddef.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
@@ -76,8 +78,12 @@ unsigned long long calibrate(void)
 
 bool approx(int i_one, int i_two)
 {
-	double one = i_one, one_bump = one * 0.01;
-	double two = i_two, two_bump = two * 0.01;
+	/*
+	 * This continues to be a noisy test. Instead of a 1% comparison
+	 * go with 10%.
+	 */
+	double one = i_one, one_bump = one * 0.1;
+	double two = i_two, two_bump = two * 0.1;
 
 	one_bump = one + MAX(one_bump, 2.0);
 	two_bump = two + MAX(two_bump, 2.0);
@@ -119,6 +125,32 @@ long compare(const char *name_one, const char *name_eval, const char *name_two,
 	return good ? 0 : 1;
 }
 
+/* Pin to a single CPU so the benchmark won't bounce around the system. */
+void affinity(void)
+{
+	long cpu;
+	ulong ncores = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF);
+	cpu_set_t *setp = CPU_ALLOC(ncores);
+	ulong setsz = CPU_ALLOC_SIZE(ncores);
+
+	/*
+	 * Totally unscientific way to avoid CPUs that might be busier:
+	 * choose the highest CPU instead of the lowest.
+	 */
+	for (cpu = ncores - 1; cpu >= 0; cpu--) {
+		CPU_ZERO_S(setsz, setp);
+		CPU_SET_S(cpu, setsz, setp);
+		if (sched_setaffinity(getpid(), setsz, setp) == -1)
+			continue;
+		printf("Pinned to CPU %lu of %lu\n", cpu + 1, ncores);
+		goto out;
+	}
+	fprintf(stderr, "Could not set CPU affinity -- calibration may not work well");
+
+out:
+	CPU_FREE(setp);
+}
+
 int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 {
 	struct sock_filter bitmap_filter[] = {
@@ -153,6 +185,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 	system("grep -H . /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable");
 	system("grep -H . /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_harden");
 
+	affinity();
+
 	if (argc > 1)
 		samples = strtoull(argv[1], NULL, 0);
 	else
-- 
2.34.1


             reply	other threads:[~2024-02-06 14:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-06 14:12 Kees Cook [this message]
2024-02-06 14:34 ` [PATCH v2] selftests/seccomp: Pin benchmark to single CPU Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240206141234.it.656-kees@kernel.org \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.