Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: test_bpf: Print total time of test in the summary | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Date | Mon, 23 Aug 2021 17:48:00 +0200 |
| |
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
| |