From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
john fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>,
Joanne Koong <joannekoong@fb.com>,
Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@suse.com>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
duanxiongchun@bytedance.com,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@bytedance.com>,
Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
zhouchengming@bytedance.com, yosryahmed@google.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test case for bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:58:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <731c281a-9911-fa86-fec2-a3c1a3954461@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzZL85C7KUwKv9i5cdLSDzM175cLjiW4EDjOqNfcxbLO+A@mail.gmail.com>
在 2022/5/12 上午11:34, Andrii Nakryiko 写道:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 2:39 AM Feng zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com> wrote:
>> From: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
>>
>> test_progs:
>> Tests new ebpf helpers bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Feng Zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
>> ---
>> .../bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++
>> .../bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 100 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..58b24c2112b0
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +// Copyright (c) 2022 Bytedance
> /* */ instead of //
Ok, I will do. Thanks.
>
>> +
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +
>> +#include "test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.skel.h"
>> +
>> +#define TEST_VALUE 1
>> +
>> +void test_map_lookup_percpu_elem(void)
>> +{
>> + struct test_map_lookup_percpu_elem *skel;
>> + int key = 0, ret;
>> + int nr_cpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN);
> I think this is actually wrong and will break selftests on systems
> with offline CPUs. Please use libbpf_num_possible_cpus() instead.
Ok, I will do. Thanks.
>
>> + int *buf;
>> +
>> + buf = (int *)malloc(nr_cpus*sizeof(int));
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(buf, "malloc"))
>> + return;
>> + memset(buf, 0, nr_cpus*sizeof(int));
> this is wrong, kernel expects to have roundup(sz, 8) per each CPU,
> while you have just 4 bytes per each element
>
> please also have spaces around multiplication operator here and above
Ok, I will use 8 bytes for key and val. Thanks.
>> + buf[0] = TEST_VALUE;
>> +
>> + skel = test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__open_and_load();
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__open_and_load"))
>> + return;
> buf leaking here
Yes, sorry for my negligence.
>
>> + ret = test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__attach(skel);
>> + ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__attach");
>> +
>> + ret = bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.percpu_array_map), &key, buf, 0);
>> + ASSERT_OK(ret, "percpu_array_map update");
>> +
>> + ret = bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.percpu_hash_map), &key, buf, 0);
>> + ASSERT_OK(ret, "percpu_hash_map update");
>> +
>> + ret = bpf_map_update_elem(bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.percpu_lru_hash_map), &key, buf, 0);
>> + ASSERT_OK(ret, "percpu_lru_hash_map update");
>> +
>> + syscall(__NR_getuid);
>> +
>> + ret = skel->bss->percpu_array_elem_val == TEST_VALUE &&
>> + skel->bss->percpu_hash_elem_val == TEST_VALUE &&
>> + skel->bss->percpu_lru_hash_elem_val == TEST_VALUE;
>> + ASSERT_OK(!ret, "bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem success");
> this would be better done as three separate ASSERT_EQ(), combining
> into opaque true/false isn't helpful if something breaks
Good suggestion.
>
>> +
>> + test_map_lookup_percpu_elem__destroy(skel);
>> +}
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..5d4ef86cbf48
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_map_lookup_percpu_elem.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +// Copyright (c) 2022 Bytedance
> /* */ instead of //
Ok, I will do. Thanks.
>
>> +
>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>> +
>> +int percpu_array_elem_val = 0;
>> +int percpu_hash_elem_val = 0;
>> +int percpu_lru_hash_elem_val = 0;
>> +
>> +struct {
>> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY);
>> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
>> + __type(key, __u32);
>> + __type(value, __u32);
>> +} percpu_array_map SEC(".maps");
>> +
>> +struct {
>> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH);
>> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
>> + __type(key, __u32);
>> + __type(value, __u32);
>> +} percpu_hash_map SEC(".maps");
>> +
>> +struct {
>> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH);
>> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
>> + __type(key, __u32);
>> + __type(value, __u32);
>> +} percpu_lru_hash_map SEC(".maps");
>> +
>> +SEC("tp/syscalls/sys_enter_getuid")
>> +int sysenter_getuid(const void *ctx)
>> +{
>> + __u32 key = 0;
>> + __u32 cpu = 0;
>> + __u32 *value;
>> +
>> + value = bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem(&percpu_array_map, &key, cpu);
>> + if (value)
>> + percpu_array_elem_val = *value;
>> +
>> + value = bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem(&percpu_hash_map, &key, cpu);
>> + if (value)
>> + percpu_hash_elem_val = *value;
>> +
>> + value = bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem(&percpu_lru_hash_map, &key, cpu);
>> + if (value)
>> + percpu_lru_hash_elem_val = *value;
>> +
> if the test happens to run on CPU 0 then the test doesn't really test
> much. It would be more interesting to have a bpf_loop() iteration that
> would fetch values on each possible CPU instead and do something with
> it.
Good suggestion. I check the code and find no bpf helper function to get
possible CPU nums.
I think for the test function, read cpu0 elem value correctly should be
considered to be no problem.
Or is it necessary to add a new helper function to get num_possible_cpus ?
>
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-12 3:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-11 9:38 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] Introduce access remote cpu elem support in BPF percpu map Feng zhou
2022-05-11 9:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] bpf: add bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem for " Feng zhou
2022-05-11 9:38 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test case for bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem Feng zhou
2022-05-12 3:34 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-12 3:58 ` Feng Zhou [this message]
2022-05-12 16:43 ` [External] " Andrii Nakryiko
2022-05-13 1:49 ` Feng Zhou
2022-05-12 1:30 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] Introduce access remote cpu elem support in BPF percpu map 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=731c281a-9911-fa86-fec2-a3c1a3954461@bytedance.com \
--to=zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cong.wang@bytedance.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davemarchevsky@fb.com \
--cc=duanxiongchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=geliang.tang@suse.com \
--cc=joannekoong@fb.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \
--cc=wangdongdong.6@bytedance.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.com \
/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).