diff options
author | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> | 2024-02-06 10:53:19 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> | 2024-02-07 12:10:57 +0100 |
commit | 55e68669b131401074513f903c097dae06ec6db1 (patch) | |
tree | 2ac5fa9a92d3364071919c0c1ef44c91eb6e4ee5 /tools/testing/selftests | |
parent | selftests/seccomp: user_notification_addfd check nextfd is available (diff) | |
download | linux-55e68669b131401074513f903c097dae06ec6db1.tar.xz linux-55e68669b131401074513f903c097dae06ec6db1.zip |
selftests/seccomp: Pin benchmark to single CPU
The seccomp benchmark test (for validating the benefit of bitmaps) can
be sensitive to scheduling speed, so pin the process to a single CPU,
which appears to significantly improve reliability, and loosen the
"close enough" checking to allow up to 10% variance instead of 1%.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202402061002.3a8722fd-oliver.sang@intel.com
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests')
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c | 38 |
1 files changed, 36 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c index 5b5c9d558dee..9d7aa5a730e0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_benchmark.c @@ -4,7 +4,9 @@ */ #define _GNU_SOURCE #include <assert.h> +#include <err.h> #include <limits.h> +#include <sched.h> #include <stdbool.h> #include <stddef.h> #include <stdio.h> @@ -76,8 +78,12 @@ unsigned long long calibrate(void) bool approx(int i_one, int i_two) { - double one = i_one, one_bump = one * 0.01; - double two = i_two, two_bump = two * 0.01; + /* + * This continues to be a noisy test. Instead of a 1% comparison + * go with 10%. + */ + double one = i_one, one_bump = one * 0.1; + double two = i_two, two_bump = two * 0.1; one_bump = one + MAX(one_bump, 2.0); two_bump = two + MAX(two_bump, 2.0); @@ -119,6 +125,32 @@ long compare(const char *name_one, const char *name_eval, const char *name_two, return good ? 0 : 1; } +/* Pin to a single CPU so the benchmark won't bounce around the system. */ +void affinity(void) +{ + long cpu; + ulong ncores = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF); + cpu_set_t *setp = CPU_ALLOC(ncores); + ulong setsz = CPU_ALLOC_SIZE(ncores); + + /* + * Totally unscientific way to avoid CPUs that might be busier: + * choose the highest CPU instead of the lowest. + */ + for (cpu = ncores - 1; cpu >= 0; cpu--) { + CPU_ZERO_S(setsz, setp); + CPU_SET_S(cpu, setsz, setp); + if (sched_setaffinity(getpid(), setsz, setp) == -1) + continue; + printf("Pinned to CPU %lu of %lu\n", cpu + 1, ncores); + goto out; + } + fprintf(stderr, "Could not set CPU affinity -- calibration may not work well"); + +out: + CPU_FREE(setp); +} + int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { struct sock_filter bitmap_filter[] = { @@ -153,6 +185,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) system("grep -H . /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_enable"); system("grep -H . /proc/sys/net/core/bpf_jit_harden"); + affinity(); + if (argc > 1) samples = strtoull(argv[1], NULL, 0); else |