linux/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_uprobes.sh

#!/bin/bash

set -eufo pipefail

for i in usermode-count syscall-count {uprobe,uretprobe}-{nop,push,ret,nop5}
do
	summary=$(sudo ./bench -w2 -d5 -a trig-$i | tail -n1 | cut -d'(' -f1 | cut -d' ' -f3-)
	printf "%-15s: %s\n" $i "$summary"
done
selftests/bpf: Extend uprobe/uretprobe triggering benchmarks Settle on three "flavors" of uprobe/uretprobe, installed on different kinds of instruction: nop, push, and ret. All three are testing different internal code paths emulating or single-stepping instructions, so are interesting to compare and benchmark separately. To ensure `push rbp` instruction we ensure that uprobe_target_push() is not a leaf function by calling (global __weak) noop function and returning something afterwards (if we don't do that, compiler will just do a tail call optimization). Also, we need to make sure that compiler isn't skipping frame pointer generation, so let's add `-fno-omit-frame-pointers` to Makefile. Just to give an idea of where we currently stand in terms of relative performance of different uprobe/uretprobe cases vs a cheap syscall (getpgid()) baseline, here are results from my local machine: $ benchs/run_bench_uprobes.sh base : 1.561 ± 0.020M/s uprobe-nop : 0.947 ± 0.007M/s uprobe-push : 0.951 ± 0.004M/s uprobe-ret : 0.443 ± 0.007M/s uretprobe-nop : 0.471 ± 0.013M/s uretprobe-push : 0.483 ± 0.004M/s uretprobe-ret : 0.306 ± 0.007M/s Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240301214551.1686095-1-andrii@kernel.org 2024-03-01 13:45:51 -08:00			`#!/bin/bash`

			`set -eufo pipefail`

selftests/bpf: Add 5-byte NOP uprobe trigger benchmark Add a 5-byte NOP uprobe trigger benchmark (x86_64 specific) to measure uprobes/uretprobes on top of NOP5 instructions. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Cc: Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250414083647.1234007-2-jolsa@kernel.org 2025-04-14 10:36:47 +02:00			`for i in usermode-count syscall-count {uprobe,uretprobe}-{nop,push,ret,nop5}`
selftests/bpf: Extend uprobe/uretprobe triggering benchmarks Settle on three "flavors" of uprobe/uretprobe, installed on different kinds of instruction: nop, push, and ret. All three are testing different internal code paths emulating or single-stepping instructions, so are interesting to compare and benchmark separately. To ensure `push rbp` instruction we ensure that uprobe_target_push() is not a leaf function by calling (global __weak) noop function and returning something afterwards (if we don't do that, compiler will just do a tail call optimization). Also, we need to make sure that compiler isn't skipping frame pointer generation, so let's add `-fno-omit-frame-pointers` to Makefile. Just to give an idea of where we currently stand in terms of relative performance of different uprobe/uretprobe cases vs a cheap syscall (getpgid()) baseline, here are results from my local machine: $ benchs/run_bench_uprobes.sh base : 1.561 ± 0.020M/s uprobe-nop : 0.947 ± 0.007M/s uprobe-push : 0.951 ± 0.004M/s uprobe-ret : 0.443 ± 0.007M/s uretprobe-nop : 0.471 ± 0.013M/s uretprobe-push : 0.483 ± 0.004M/s uretprobe-ret : 0.306 ± 0.007M/s Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240301214551.1686095-1-andrii@kernel.org 2024-03-01 13:45:51 -08:00			`do`
			`summary=$(sudo ./bench -w2 -d5 -a trig-$i \| tail -n1 \| cut -d'(' -f1 \| cut -d' ' -f3-)`
			`printf "%-15s: %s\n" $i "$summary"`
			`done`