[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EC94A6E-B3C5-4D2D-BD4B-FF7C4F149FD1@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:15:03 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>
To: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
CC: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
"martin.lau@...ux.dev" <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
"yonghong.song@...ux.dev" <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
"john.fastabend@...il.com" <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"sdf@...gle.com" <sdf@...gle.com>,
"haoluo@...gle.com" <haoluo@...gle.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
"himadrispandya@...il.com" <himadrispandya@...il.com>,
"julia.lawall@...ia.fr" <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] bpf/selftests: Test pinning bpf timer to a
core
> On Oct 2, 2023, at 4:47 PM, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
Acked-by: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
With one nit/question below.
> ---
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/timer.c | 4 +
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
>
> 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..0112b9c038b4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
> @@ -53,12 +53,28 @@ struct {
> __type(value, struct elem);
> } abs_timer SEC(".maps");
>
> +struct {
> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
> + __type(key, int);
> + __type(value, struct elem);
> +} soft_timer_pinned SEC(".maps");
> +
> +struct {
> + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
> + __uint(max_entries, 1);
> + __type(key, int);
> + __type(value, struct elem);
> +} abs_timer_pinned SEC(".maps");
nit: I think we can also do something like the following, but I am not
sure whether this style is not recommended.
diff --git i/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c w/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
index 9a16d95213e1..638eeebcd6c9 100644
--- i/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/timer.c
+++ w/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;
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists