On Mon, Jul 07, 2025, James Houghton wrote: > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Introduce a new selftest, execute_perf_test, that uses the > perf_test_util framework to measure the performance of executing code > within a VM. This test is similar to the other perf_test_util-based > tests in that it spins up a variable number of vCPUs and runs them > concurrently, accessing memory. > > In order to support execution, extend perf_test_util to populate guest > memory with return instructions rather than random garbage. This way > memory can be execute simply by calling it. > > Currently only x86_64 supports execution, but other architectures can be > easily added by providing their return code instruction. > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 1 + > .../testing/selftests/kvm/execute_perf_test.c | 199 ++++++++++++++++++ Honest question, is there really no way to dedup memstress tests? This seems like an insane amount of code just to call memstress_set_execute(). > .../testing/selftests/kvm/include/memstress.h | 4 + > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/memstress.c | 25 ++- > 4 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/execute_perf_test.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > index 38b95998e1e6b..0dc435e944632 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile.kvm > @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += x86/recalc_apic_map_test > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += access_tracking_perf_test > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += coalesced_io_test > TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += dirty_log_perf_test > +TEST_GEN_PROGS_x86 += execute_perf_test How about call_ret_perf_test instead of execute_perf_test? I like that "execute" aligns with "read" and "write", but as a test name it ends up being quite ambiguous.
