Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:00 PM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 13:19:36 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:02 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 26 May 2020 19:50:47 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 25 May 2020 16:31:05 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>>> Yes, that should work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, assigning to zero didn't work (it still complained about
> >>>> uninitialized read), but using a separate int *lenFail to assign to
> >>>> rLenPtr worked. Curiously, if I used rLenPtr = len1; in error case, it
> >>>> actually takes a bit more time to verify.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I've converted everything else as you suggested. I compiled latest
> >>>> herd7 and it doesn't produce any warnings. But it's also extremely
> >>>> slow, compared to the herd7 that I get by default. Validating simple
> >>>> 1p1c cases takes about 2.5x times longer (0.03s vs 0.07),
> >>
> >> Wait a moment!
> >>
> >> This 0.03s was the run time of the original 1p1c litmus test, wasn't it?
> >> Then you are comparing apples and oranges.
> >>
> >> How long does your default herd7 take to complete the updated 1p1c test?
> >>
> >>         Thanks, Akira
> >
> > It could be new test vs old test, so I re-ran again. Identical
> > 1p1c-unbound test:
> >
> > OLD version:
> >
> > $ herd7 -version && herd7 -unroll 0 -conf linux-kernel.cfg
> > ../../Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound.litmus
> > 7.52, Rev: exported
> > Test bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound Allowed
> > States 2
> > 0:rFail=0; 1:rFail=0; cx=0; len1=1; px=1;
> > 0:rFail=0; 1:rFail=0; cx=1; len1=1; px=1;
> > Ok
> > Witnesses
> > Positive: 3 Negative: 0
> > Condition exists (0:rFail=0 /\ 1:rFail=0 /\ px=1 /\ len1=1 /\ (cx=0 \/ cx=1))
> > Observation bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound Always 3 0
> > Time bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound 0.03
> > Hash=20a68cc69b09fbb79f407f825c015623
> >
> > LATEST from sources version:
> >
> > $ herd7 -version && herd7 -unroll 0 -conf linux-kernel.cfg
> > ../../Documentation/litmus-tests/bpf-rb/bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound.litmus
> > 7.55+01(dev), Rev: 61e23aaee7bba87ccf4cdf1a620a3a9fa8f9a586
> > Test bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound Allowed
> > States 2
> > 0:rFail=0; 1:rFail=0; cx=0; len1=1; px=1;
> > 0:rFail=0; 1:rFail=0; cx=1; len1=1; px=1;
> > Ok
> > Witnesses
> > Positive: 3 Negative: 0
> > Condition exists (0:rFail=0 /\ 1:rFail=0 /\ px=1 /\ len1=1 /\ (cx=0 \/ cx=1))
> > Observation bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound Always 3 0
> > Time bpf-rb+1p1c+unbound 0.06
> > Hash=20a68cc69b09fbb79f407f825c015623
> >
> > Still 2x difference.
>
> I see opposite tendency on a different set of time consuming
> litmus tests comparing herd7 7.52 and HEAD.
>
>                                                 herd7 7.52     herd7 HEAD
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u      8.44           6.12
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-C           77.19          69.92
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-CE         355.62         287.27
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X          157.87         191.50
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u              2.36           0.94
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-+l-o-o-u-C                   2.32           0.93
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-+l-o-o-u-CE                  5.64           3.52
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X                    3.18           2.52
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-XE                  11.81          10.35
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u                      0.25           0.19
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-C                            0.15           0.12
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-CE                           0.26           0.20
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-X                            0.17           0.14
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u-XE                           0.38           0.30
> C-SB+l-o-o-u+l-o-o-u                              0.04           0.03
>
> NOTE: These were taken on a fairly old PC, with power-saving mode enabled.
>
> Did you used the original 1p1c unbound test?
> I'd like you to compare the updated 1p1c unbound test.

No, that was updated one. I'll try another kernel a bit later (with
proper kernel-devel package), currently re-running 3p1c test to see
how long it takes.

>
>         Thanks, Akira
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>                                                           but trying
> >>>> to validate 2p1c case, which normally validates in 42s (unbounded) and
> >>>> 110s (bounded), it took more than 20 minutes and hasn't finished,
> >>>> before I gave up. So I don't know what's going on there...
> >>>
> >>> herdtools7 has recently been heavily restructured.
> >>> On the performance regression, I must defer to Luc.
> >>>
> >>> Luc, do you have any idea?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As for klitmus7, I managed to generate everything without warnings,
> >>>> but couldn't make it build completely due to:
> >>>>
> >>>> $ make
> >>>> make -C /lib/modules/5.6.13-01802-g938d64da97c6/build/
> >>>
> >>> So you are on Linux 5.6.x which requires cutting-edge klitmus7.
> >>>
> >>>> M=/home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules modules
> >>>> make[1]: Entering directory `/data/users/andriin/linux-build/fb-config'
> >>>> make[2]: Entering directory `/data/users/andriin/linux-build/default-x86_64'
> >>>>   CC [M]  /home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.o
> >>>> /home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.c:
> >>>> In function âzyvaâ:
> >>>> /home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.c:507:12:
> >>>> warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array âthâ [-Wvla]
> >>>>      struct task_struct *th[nth];
> >>>>             ^~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> /home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.c:
> >>>> In function âlitmus_initâ:
> >>>> /home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.c:605:67:
> >>>> error: passing argument 4 of âproc_createâ from incompatible pointer
> >>>> type [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
> >>>>    struct proc_dir_entry *litmus_pde =
> >>>> proc_create("litmus",0,NULL,&litmus_proc_fops);
> >>>>
> >>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> In file included from
> >>>> /home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.c:15:
> >>>> /data/users/andriin/linux-fb/include/linux/proc_fs.h:64:24: note:
> >>>> expected âconst struct proc_ops *â but argument is of type âconst
> >>>> struct file_operations *â
> >>>>  struct proc_dir_entry *proc_create(const char *name, umode_t mode,
> >>>> struct proc_dir_entry *parent, const struct proc_ops *proc_ops);
> >>>>                         ^~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> >>>> make[3]: *** [/home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules/litmus000.o]
> >>>> Error 1
> >>>> make[2]: *** [/home/andriin/local/linux-trees/tools/memory-model/mymodules]
> >>>> Error 2
> >>>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/data/users/andriin/linux-build/default-x86_64'
> >>>> make[1]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> >>>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/users/andriin/linux-build/fb-config'
> >>>> make: *** [all] Error 2
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> These errors suggest the klitmus7 you used is version 7.52 or some such.
> >>> You said you have built herd7 from the source.  Have you also built klitmus7?
> >>>
> >>> The up-to-date klitmus7 should generate code compatible with Linux 5.6.x.
> >>>
> >>> Could you try with the latest one?
> >>>
> >>>         Thanks, Akira
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But at least it doesn't complain about atomic_t anymore. So anyways,
> >>>> I'm going to post updated litmus tests separately from BPF ringbuf
> >>>> patches, because Documentation/litmus-tests is not yet present in
> >>>> bpf-next.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can find a basic introduction of klitmus7 in tools/memory-model/README.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         Thanks, Akira
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please note that if you are on Linux 5.6 (or later), you need an up-to-date
> >>>>>>> klitmus7 due to a change in kernel API.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any question is welcome!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>         Thanks, Akira
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>