On 02/27/2018 01:12 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 21:11 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 02/26/2018 07:52 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> >>> >>> test_bpf() is taking 1.6 seconds nowadays, it is time >>> to add a schedule point in it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> >> >> Applied to bpf tree, thanks Eric! > > Thanks Daniel > > Note that some BPF programs are quite expensive > > [ 173.447471] test_bpf: #264 BPF_MAXINSNS: Call heavy transformations > jited:1 19248 18548 PASS > jited:1 12519 PASS > [ 173.509228] test_bpf: #269 BPF_MAXINSNS: ld_abs+get_processor_id jited:1 > 20896 PASS > > So we can still consume ~200 ms per test, without cond_resched() > > Maybe reducing MAX_TESTRUNS from 10000 to 1000 would be the next step ?
Yeah, that's totally fine with me, please feel free to send a patch. Another step on todo is to reduce the test cases from test_bpf and move them into the test_verifier's run-time testing where applicable. Would be nice if at some point we can get rid of test_bpf and have everything consolidated within test_verifier.
