From: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] bpf/selftests: Test pinning bpf timer to a core
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:23:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231004162339.200702-3-void@manifault.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231004162339.200702-1-void@manifault.com>
Now that we support pinning a BPF timer to the current core, we should
test it with some selftests. This patch adds two new testcases to the
timer suite, which verifies that a BPF timer both with and without
BPF_F_TIMER_ABS, can be pinned to the calling core with
BPF_F_TIMER_CPU_PIN.
Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
---
.../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c | 4 ++
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c
index 290c21dbe65a..d8bc838445ec 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ static int timer(struct timer *timer_skel)
ASSERT_EQ(timer_skel->data->callback_check, 52, "callback_check1");
ASSERT_EQ(timer_skel->data->callback2_check, 52, "callback2_check1");
+ ASSERT_EQ(timer_skel->bss->pinned_callback_check, 0, "pinned_callback_check1");
prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(timer_skel->progs.test1);
err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
@@ -32,6 +33,9 @@ static int timer(struct timer *timer_skel)
/* check that timer_cb3() was executed twice */
ASSERT_EQ(timer_skel->bss->abs_data, 12, "abs_data");
+ /* check that timer_cb_pinned() was executed twice */
+ ASSERT_EQ(timer_skel->bss->pinned_callback_check, 2, "pinned_callback_check");
+
/* check that there were no errors in timer execution */
ASSERT_EQ(timer_skel->bss->err, 0, "err");
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
index 9a16d95213e1..8b946c8188c6 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ struct {
__uint(max_entries, 1);
__type(key, int);
__type(value, struct elem);
-} abs_timer SEC(".maps");
+} abs_timer SEC(".maps"), soft_timer_pinned SEC(".maps"), abs_timer_pinned SEC(".maps");
__u64 bss_data;
__u64 abs_data;
@@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ __u64 err;
__u64 ok;
__u64 callback_check = 52;
__u64 callback2_check = 52;
+__u64 pinned_callback_check;
+__s32 pinned_cpu;
#define ARRAY 1
#define HTAB 2
@@ -329,3 +331,62 @@ int BPF_PROG2(test3, int, a)
return 0;
}
+
+/* callback for pinned timer */
+static int timer_cb_pinned(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_timer *timer)
+{
+ __s32 cpu = bpf_get_smp_processor_id();
+
+ if (cpu != pinned_cpu)
+ err |= 16384;
+
+ pinned_callback_check++;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void test_pinned_timer(bool soft)
+{
+ int key = 0;
+ void *map;
+ struct bpf_timer *timer;
+ __u64 flags = BPF_F_TIMER_CPU_PIN;
+ __u64 start_time;
+
+ if (soft) {
+ map = &soft_timer_pinned;
+ start_time = 0;
+ } else {
+ map = &abs_timer_pinned;
+ start_time = bpf_ktime_get_boot_ns();
+ flags |= BPF_F_TIMER_ABS;
+ }
+
+ timer = bpf_map_lookup_elem(map, &key);
+ if (timer) {
+ if (bpf_timer_init(timer, map, CLOCK_BOOTTIME) != 0)
+ err |= 4096;
+ bpf_timer_set_callback(timer, timer_cb_pinned);
+ pinned_cpu = bpf_get_smp_processor_id();
+ bpf_timer_start(timer, start_time + 1000, flags);
+ } else {
+ err |= 8192;
+ }
+}
+
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test4")
+int BPF_PROG2(test4, int, a)
+{
+ bpf_printk("test4");
+ test_pinned_timer(true);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test5")
+int BPF_PROG2(test5, int, a)
+{
+ bpf_printk("test5");
+ test_pinned_timer(false);
+
+ return 0;
+}
--
2.41.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-04 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-04 16:23 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: Add ability to pin bpf timer to calling CPU David Vernet
2023-10-04 16:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] " David Vernet
2023-10-08 4:09 ` Hou Tao
2023-10-04 16:23 ` David Vernet [this message]
2023-10-08 4:23 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] bpf/selftests: Test pinning bpf timer to a core Hou Tao
2023-10-09 14:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: Add ability to pin bpf timer to calling CPU patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20231004162339.200702-3-void@manifault.com \
--to=void@manifault.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).