* Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 1:37 AM Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Add 5-byte nop uprobe trigger bench (x86_64 specific) to measure > > uprobes/uretprobes on top of nop5 instruction. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 12 ++++++ > > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++ > > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/run_bench_uprobes.sh | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > LGTM. Should we land this benchmark patch through the bpf-next tree? > It won't break anything, just will be slower until patch #1 gets into > bpf-next as well, which is fine. > > Ingo or Peter, any objections to me routing this patch separately > through bpf-next? > > But either way: > > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> I've applied this to the perf tree with a few readability edits to the changelogs and the new tags added in. Thanks, Ingo
