On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 10:48:29AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 1:50 PM Jiri Olsa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Adding support to call bpf_get_stackid helper from trigger programs,
> > so far added for kprobe multi.
> >
> > Adding the --stacktrace/-g option to enable it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c | 4 ++++
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.h | 1 +
> > .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c | 1 +
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/trigger_bench.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >
>
> This now actually becomes a stack trace benchmark :) But I don't mind,
> I think it would be good to be able to benchmark this. But I think we
> should then implement it for all different tracing programs (tp,
> raw_tp, fentry/fexit/fmod_ret) for consistency and so we can compare
> and contrast?...
yep, agreed
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> > index bd29bb2e6cb5..8dadd9c928ec 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c
> > @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ static const struct argp_option opts[] = {
> > { "verbose", 'v', NULL, 0, "Verbose debug output"},
> > { "affinity", 'a', NULL, 0, "Set consumer/producer thread
> > affinity"},
> > { "quiet", 'q', NULL, 0, "Be more quiet"},
> > + { "stacktrace", 'g', NULL, 0, "Get stack trace"},
>
> bikeshedding time: why "g"? why not -S or something like that?
perf tool strikes back ;-) -S is better
thanks,
jirka
