From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Feng zhou <zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.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: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test case for bpf_map_lookup_percpu_elem
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 20:34:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZL85C7KUwKv9i5cdLSDzM175cLjiW4EDjOqNfcxbLO+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220511093854.411-3-zhoufeng.zf@bytedance.com>
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 //
> +
> +#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.
> + 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
> + 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
> + 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
> +
> + 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 //
> +
> +#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.
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> --
> 2.20.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-12 3:34 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 [this message]
2022-05-12 3:58 ` [External] " Feng Zhou
2022-05-12 16:43 ` 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=CAEf4BzZL85C7KUwKv9i5cdLSDzM175cLjiW4EDjOqNfcxbLO+A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=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 \
--cc=zhoufeng.zf@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).