From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, hca@linux.ibm.com,
revest@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] fprobe: use rhashtable for fprobe_ip_table
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:28:27 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250728162827.09b6c89697bc1ce6a3f33d55@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250728041252.441040-1-dongml2@chinatelecom.cn>
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 12:12:47 +0800
Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
> For now, the budget of the hash table that is used for fprobe_ip_table is
> fixed, which is 256, and can cause huge overhead when the hooked functions
> is a huge quantity.
>
> In this series, we use rhashtable for fprobe_ip_table to reduce the
> overhead.
>
> Meanwhile, we also add the benchmark testcase "kprobe-multi-all", which
> will hook all the kernel functions during the testing. Before this series,
> the performance is:
> usermode-count : 875.380 ± 0.366M/s
> kernel-count : 435.924 ± 0.461M/s
> syscall-count : 31.004 ± 0.017M/s
> fentry : 134.076 ± 1.752M/s
> fexit : 68.319 ± 0.055M/s
> fmodret : 71.530 ± 0.032M/s
> rawtp : 202.751 ± 0.138M/s
> tp : 79.562 ± 0.084M/s
> kprobe : 55.587 ± 0.028M/s
> kprobe-multi : 56.481 ± 0.043M/s
> kprobe-multi-all: 6.283 ± 0.005M/s << look this
> kretprobe : 22.378 ± 0.028M/s
> kretprobe-multi: 28.205 ± 0.025M/s
>
> With this series, the performance is:
> usermode-count : 897.083 ± 5.347M/s
> kernel-count : 431.638 ± 1.781M/s
> syscall-count : 30.807 ± 0.057M/s
> fentry : 134.803 ± 1.045M/s
> fexit : 68.763 ± 0.018M/s
> fmodret : 71.444 ± 0.052M/s
> rawtp : 202.344 ± 0.149M/s
> tp : 79.644 ± 0.376M/s
> kprobe : 55.480 ± 0.108M/s
> kprobe-multi : 57.302 ± 0.119M/s
> kprobe-multi-all: 57.855 ± 0.144M/s << look this
> kretprobe : 22.265 ± 0.023M/s
> kretprobe-multi: 27.740 ± 0.023M/s
>
> The benchmark of "kprobe-multi-all" increase from 6.283M/s to 57.855M/s.
Wow, great improvement. Interesting. Let me review it.
Thanks!!
>
> Menglong Dong (4):
> fprobe: use rhashtable
> selftests/bpf: move get_ksyms and get_addrs to trace_helpers.c
> selftests/bpf: add benchmark testing for kprobe-multi-all
> selftests/bpf: skip recursive functions for kprobe_multi
>
> include/linux/fprobe.h | 2 +-
> kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 144 ++++++-----
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 2 +
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c | 30 +++
> .../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_trigger.sh | 2 +-
> .../bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c | 220 +----------------
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/trace_helpers.c | 230 ++++++++++++++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/trace_helpers.h | 3 +
> 8 files changed, 351 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.50.1
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-28 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-28 4:12 [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] fprobe: use rhashtable for fprobe_ip_table Menglong Dong
2025-07-28 4:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] fprobe: use rhashtable Menglong Dong
2025-07-28 13:13 ` Jiri Olsa
2025-07-28 14:44 ` Menglong Dong
2025-07-29 3:43 ` kernel test robot
2025-07-28 4:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: move get_ksyms and get_addrs to trace_helpers.c Menglong Dong
2025-07-28 4:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: skip recursive functions for kprobe_multi Menglong Dong
2025-07-28 4:12 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add benchmark testing for kprobe-multi-all Menglong Dong
2025-07-28 7:28 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2025-07-28 13:14 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] fprobe: use rhashtable for fprobe_ip_table Jiri Olsa
2025-07-28 14:36 ` Menglong Dong
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=20250728162827.09b6c89697bc1ce6a3f33d55@kernel.org \
--to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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