You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
0 commit comments