From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
kernel-team@fb.com, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/8] selftests/bpf: Refactor some functions for kprobe_multi_test
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:15:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240326041503.1198982-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240326041443.1197498-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Refactor some functions in kprobe_multi_test.c to extract
some helper functions who will be used in later patches
to avoid code duplication.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
.../bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c | 94 +++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
index 05000810e28e..46e28edda595 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c
@@ -336,6 +336,37 @@ static bool symbol_equal(long key1, long key2, void *ctx __maybe_unused)
return strcmp((const char *) key1, (const char *) key2) == 0;
}
+static bool is_invalid_entry(char *buf, bool kernel)
+{
+ if (kernel && strchr(buf, '['))
+ return true;
+ if (!kernel && !strchr(buf, '['))
+ return true;
+ return false;
+}
+
+static bool skip_entry(char *name)
+{
+ /*
+ * We attach to almost all kernel functions and some of them
+ * will cause 'suspicious RCU usage' when fprobe is attached
+ * to them. Filter out the current culprits - arch_cpu_idle
+ * default_idle and rcu_* functions.
+ */
+ if (!strcmp(name, "arch_cpu_idle"))
+ return true;
+ if (!strcmp(name, "default_idle"))
+ return true;
+ if (!strncmp(name, "rcu_", 4))
+ return true;
+ if (!strcmp(name, "bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func"))
+ return true;
+ if (!strncmp(name, "__ftrace_invalid_address__",
+ sizeof("__ftrace_invalid_address__") - 1))
+ return true;
+ return false;
+}
+
static int get_syms(char ***symsp, size_t *cntp, bool kernel)
{
size_t cap = 0, cnt = 0, i;
@@ -368,30 +399,13 @@ static int get_syms(char ***symsp, size_t *cntp, bool kernel)
}
while (fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f)) {
- if (kernel && strchr(buf, '['))
- continue;
- if (!kernel && !strchr(buf, '['))
+ if (is_invalid_entry(buf, kernel))
continue;
free(name);
if (sscanf(buf, "%ms$*[^\n]\n", &name) != 1)
continue;
- /*
- * We attach to almost all kernel functions and some of them
- * will cause 'suspicious RCU usage' when fprobe is attached
- * to them. Filter out the current culprits - arch_cpu_idle
- * default_idle and rcu_* functions.
- */
- if (!strcmp(name, "arch_cpu_idle"))
- continue;
- if (!strcmp(name, "default_idle"))
- continue;
- if (!strncmp(name, "rcu_", 4))
- continue;
- if (!strcmp(name, "bpf_dispatcher_xdp_func"))
- continue;
- if (!strncmp(name, "__ftrace_invalid_address__",
- sizeof("__ftrace_invalid_address__") - 1))
+ if (skip_entry(name))
continue;
err = hashmap__add(map, name, 0);
@@ -426,34 +440,20 @@ static int get_syms(char ***symsp, size_t *cntp, bool kernel)
return err;
}
-static void test_kprobe_multi_bench_attach(bool kernel)
+static void do_bench_test(struct kprobe_multi_empty *skel, struct bpf_kprobe_multi_opts *opts)
{
- LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_multi_opts, opts);
- struct kprobe_multi_empty *skel = NULL;
long attach_start_ns, attach_end_ns;
long detach_start_ns, detach_end_ns;
double attach_delta, detach_delta;
struct bpf_link *link = NULL;
- char **syms = NULL;
- size_t cnt = 0, i;
-
- if (!ASSERT_OK(get_syms(&syms, &cnt, kernel), "get_syms"))
- return;
-
- skel = kprobe_multi_empty__open_and_load();
- if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "kprobe_multi_empty__open_and_load"))
- goto cleanup;
-
- opts.syms = (const char **) syms;
- opts.cnt = cnt;
attach_start_ns = get_time_ns();
link = bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts(skel->progs.test_kprobe_empty,
- NULL, &opts);
+ NULL, opts);
attach_end_ns = get_time_ns();
if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "bpf_program__attach_kprobe_multi_opts"))
- goto cleanup;
+ return;
detach_start_ns = get_time_ns();
bpf_link__destroy(link);
@@ -462,9 +462,29 @@ static void test_kprobe_multi_bench_attach(bool kernel)
attach_delta = (attach_end_ns - attach_start_ns) / 1000000000.0;
detach_delta = (detach_end_ns - detach_start_ns) / 1000000000.0;
- printf("%s: found %lu functions\n", __func__, cnt);
+ printf("%s: found %lu functions\n", __func__, opts->cnt);
printf("%s: attached in %7.3lfs\n", __func__, attach_delta);
printf("%s: detached in %7.3lfs\n", __func__, detach_delta);
+}
+
+static void test_kprobe_multi_bench_attach(bool kernel)
+{
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_kprobe_multi_opts, opts);
+ struct kprobe_multi_empty *skel = NULL;
+ char **syms = NULL;
+ size_t cnt = 0, i;
+
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(get_syms(&syms, &cnt, kernel), "get_syms"))
+ return;
+
+ skel = kprobe_multi_empty__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "kprobe_multi_empty__open_and_load"))
+ goto cleanup;
+
+ opts.syms = (const char **) syms;
+ opts.cnt = cnt;
+
+ do_bench_test(skel, &opts);
cleanup:
kprobe_multi_empty__destroy(skel);
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-26 4:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-26 4:14 [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/8] bpf: Fix a couple of test failures with LTO kernel Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/8] selftests/bpf: Replace CHECK with ASSERT macros for ksyms test Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 2/8] libbpf: Mark libbpf_kallsyms_parse static function Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 3/8] libbpf: Handle <orig_name>.llvm.<hash> symbol properly Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:15 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2024-03-26 4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/8] selftests/bpf: Refactor trace helper func load_kallsyms_local() Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 6/8] selftests/bpf: Add {load,search}_kallsyms_custom_local() Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 7/8] selftests/bpf: Fix kprobe_multi_bench_attach test failure with LTO kernel Yonghong Song
2024-03-26 4:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 8/8] selftests/bpf: Add a kprobe_multi subtest to use addrs instead of syms Yonghong Song
2024-03-28 2:00 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/8] bpf: Fix a couple of test failures with LTO kernel patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20240326041503.1198982-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox