[PATCH bpf-next] bpf: test_bpf: Print total time of test in the summary

[PATCH bpf-next] bpf: test_bpf: Print total time of test in the summary

[Tiezhu Yang]

The total time of test is useful to compare the performance
when bpf_jit_enable is 0 or 1, so print it in the summary.

Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
---
 lib/test_bpf.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
index 830a18e..b1b17ba 100644
--- a/lib/test_bpf.c
+++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
@@ -8920,6 +8920,9 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment_single(const struct skb_segment_test *test)
 static __init int test_skb_segment(void)
 {
 	int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0;
+	u64 start, finish;
+
+	start = ktime_get_ns();
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) {
 		const struct skb_segment_test *test = &skb_segment_tests[i];
@@ -8935,8 +8938,10 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void)
 		}
 	}
 
-	pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED\n", __func__,
-		pass_cnt, err_cnt);
+	finish = ktime_get_ns();
+
+	pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED in %llu nsec\n",
+		__func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, finish - start);
 	return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
 
@@ -8944,6 +8949,9 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void)
 {
 	int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0;
 	int jit_cnt = 0, run_cnt = 0;
+	u64 start, finish;
+
+	start = ktime_get_ns();
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) {
 		struct bpf_prog *fp;
@@ -8983,8 +8991,10 @@ static __init int test_bpf(void)
 		}
 	}
 
-	pr_info("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed]\n",
-		pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt);
+	finish = ktime_get_ns();
+
+	pr_info("Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed] in %llu nsec\n",
+		pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt, finish - start);
 
 	return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
@@ -9192,6 +9202,9 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs)
 {
 	int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0;
 	int jit_cnt = 0, run_cnt = 0;
+	u64 start, finish;
+
+	start = ktime_get_ns();
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tail_call_tests); i++) {
 		struct tail_call_test *test = &tail_call_tests[i];
@@ -9222,8 +9235,10 @@ static __init int test_tail_calls(struct bpf_array *progs)
 		}
 	}
 
-	pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed]\n",
-		__func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt);
+	finish = ktime_get_ns();
+
+	pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED, [%d/%d JIT'ed] in %llu nsec\n",
+		__func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, jit_cnt, run_cnt, finish - start);
 
 	return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: test_bpf: Print total time of test in the summary

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 8/21/21 2:13 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> The total time of test is useful to compare the performance
> when bpf_jit_enable is 0 or 1, so print it in the summary.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
> ---
>   lib/test_bpf.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
> index 830a18e..b1b17ba 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
> @@ -8920,6 +8920,9 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment_single(const struct skb_segment_test *test)
>   static __init int test_skb_segment(void)
>   {
>   	int i, err_cnt = 0, pass_cnt = 0;
> +	u64 start, finish;
> +
> +	start = ktime_get_ns();
>   
>   	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(skb_segment_tests); i++) {
>   		const struct skb_segment_test *test = &skb_segment_tests[i];
> @@ -8935,8 +8938,10 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void)
>   		}
>   	}
>   
> -	pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED\n", __func__,
> -		pass_cnt, err_cnt);
> +	finish = ktime_get_ns();
> +
> +	pr_info("%s: Summary: %d PASSED, %d FAILED in %llu nsec\n",
> +		__func__, pass_cnt, err_cnt, finish - start);
>   	return err_cnt ? -EINVAL : 0;
>   }

I don't think this gives you any accurate results (e.g. what if this gets migrated
or preempted?); maybe rather use the duration from __run_one() ..

Thanks,
Daniel