From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
kernel-team@fb.com, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for array map with local percpu kptr
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 12:54:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230825195409.96115-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230825195328.92126-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Add non-sleepable and sleepable tests with percpu kptr. For
non-sleepable test, four programs are executed in the order of:
1. allocate percpu data.
2. assign values to percpu data.
3. retrieve percpu data.
4. de-allocate percpu data.
The sleepable prog tried to exercise all above 4 steps in a
single prog. Also for sleepable prog, rcu_read_lock is needed
to protect direct percpu ptr access (from map value) and
following bpf_this_cpu_ptr() and bpf_per_cpu_ptr() helpers.
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c | 78 ++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c | 187 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 265 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0fb536822f14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <test_progs.h>
+#include "percpu_alloc_array.skel.h"
+
+static void test_array(void)
+{
+ struct percpu_alloc_array *skel;
+ int err, prog_fd;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts);
+
+ skel = percpu_alloc_array__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "percpu_alloc_array__open"))
+ return;
+
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_1, true);
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_2, true);
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_3, true);
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_4, true);
+
+ skel->rodata->nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
+
+ err = percpu_alloc_array__load(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "percpu_alloc_array__load"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = percpu_alloc_array__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "percpu_alloc_array__attach"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test_array_map_1);
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run array_map 1-4");
+ ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "test_run array_map 1-4");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->cpu0_field_d, 2, "cpu0_field_d");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->sum_field_c, 1, "sum_field_c");
+out:
+ percpu_alloc_array__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+static void test_array_sleepable(void)
+{
+ struct percpu_alloc_array *skel;
+ int err, prog_fd;
+ LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts);
+
+ skel = percpu_alloc_array__open();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "percpu_alloc__open"))
+ return;
+
+ bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_10, true);
+
+ skel->rodata->nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
+
+ err = percpu_alloc_array__load(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "percpu_alloc_array__load"))
+ goto out;
+
+ err = percpu_alloc_array__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "percpu_alloc_array__attach"))
+ goto out;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.test_array_map_10);
+ err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &topts);
+ ASSERT_OK(err, "test_run array_map_10");
+ ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval, 0, "test_run array_map_10");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->cpu0_field_d, 2, "cpu0_field_d");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->sum_field_c, 1, "sum_field_c");
+out:
+ percpu_alloc_array__destroy(skel);
+}
+
+void test_percpu_alloc(void)
+{
+ if (test__start_subtest("array"))
+ test_array();
+ if (test__start_subtest("array_sleepable"))
+ test_array_sleepable();
+}
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..3bd7d47870a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+#include "bpf_experimental.h"
+
+struct val_t {
+ long b, c, d;
+};
+
+struct elem {
+ long sum;
+ struct val_t __percpu_kptr *pc;
+};
+
+struct {
+ __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
+ __uint(max_entries, 1);
+ __type(key, int);
+ __type(value, struct elem);
+} array SEC(".maps");
+
+void bpf_rcu_read_lock(void) __ksym;
+void bpf_rcu_read_unlock(void) __ksym;
+
+const volatile int nr_cpus;
+
+/* Initialize the percpu object */
+SEC("?fentry/bpf_fentry_test1")
+int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_1)
+{
+ struct val_t __percpu_kptr *p;
+ struct elem *e;
+ int index = 0;
+
+ e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
+ if (!e)
+ return 0;
+
+ p = bpf_percpu_obj_new(struct val_t);
+ if (!p)
+ return 0;
+
+ p = bpf_kptr_xchg(&e->pc, p);
+ if (p)
+ bpf_percpu_obj_drop(p);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* Update percpu data */
+SEC("?fentry/bpf_fentry_test2")
+int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_2)
+{
+ struct val_t __percpu_kptr *p;
+ struct val_t *v;
+ struct elem *e;
+ int index = 0;
+
+ e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
+ if (!e)
+ return 0;
+
+ p = e->pc;
+ if (!p)
+ return 0;
+
+ v = bpf_per_cpu_ptr(p, 0);
+ if (!v)
+ return 0;
+ v->c = 1;
+ v->d = 2;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int cpu0_field_d, sum_field_c;
+
+/* Summarize percpu data */
+SEC("?fentry/bpf_fentry_test3")
+int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_3)
+{
+ struct val_t __percpu_kptr *p;
+ int i, index = 0;
+ struct val_t *v;
+ struct elem *e;
+
+ e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
+ if (!e)
+ return 0;
+
+ p = e->pc;
+ if (!p)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_for(i, 0, nr_cpus) {
+ v = bpf_per_cpu_ptr(p, i);
+ if (v) {
+ if (i == 0)
+ cpu0_field_d = v->d;
+ sum_field_c += v->c;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* Explicitly free allocated percpu data */
+SEC("?fentry/bpf_fentry_test4")
+int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_4)
+{
+ struct val_t __percpu_kptr *p;
+ struct elem *e;
+ int index = 0;
+
+ e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
+ if (!e)
+ return 0;
+
+ /* delete */
+ p = bpf_kptr_xchg(&e->pc, NULL);
+ if (p) {
+ bpf_percpu_obj_drop(p);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+SEC("?fentry.s/bpf_fentry_test1")
+int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_10)
+{
+ struct val_t __percpu_kptr *p, *p1;
+ int i, index = 0;
+ struct val_t *v;
+ struct elem *e;
+
+ e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
+ if (!e)
+ return 0;
+
+ bpf_rcu_read_lock();
+ p = e->pc;
+ if (!p) {
+ p = bpf_percpu_obj_new(struct val_t);
+ if (!p)
+ goto out;
+
+ p1 = bpf_kptr_xchg(&e->pc, p);
+ if (p1) {
+ /* race condition */
+ bpf_percpu_obj_drop(p1);
+ }
+
+ p = e->pc;
+ if (!p)
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ v = bpf_this_cpu_ptr(p);
+ v->c = 3;
+ v = bpf_this_cpu_ptr(p);
+ v->c = 0;
+
+ v = bpf_per_cpu_ptr(p, 0);
+ if (!v)
+ goto out;
+ v->c = 1;
+ v->d = 2;
+
+ /* delete */
+ p1 = bpf_kptr_xchg(&e->pc, NULL);
+ if (!p1)
+ goto out;
+
+ bpf_for(i, 0, nr_cpus) {
+ v = bpf_per_cpu_ptr(p, i);
+ if (v) {
+ if (i == 0)
+ cpu0_field_d = v->d;
+ sum_field_c += v->c;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* finally release p */
+ bpf_percpu_obj_drop(p1);
+out:
+ bpf_rcu_read_unlock();
+ return 0;
+}
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-25 19:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-25 19:53 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/13] bpf: Add support for local percpu kptr Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/13] bpf: Add support for non-fix-size percpu mem allocation Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/13] bpf: Add BPF_KPTR_PERCPU as a field type Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/13] bpf: Add alloc/xchg/direct_access support for local percpu kptr Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/13] bpf: Add bpf_this_cpu_ptr/bpf_per_cpu_ptr support for allocated percpu obj Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/13] selftests/bpf: Update error message in negative linked_list test Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/13] libbpf: Add __percpu_kptr macro definition Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 21:13 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2023-08-25 23:13 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/13] selftests/bpf: Add bpf_percpu_obj_{new,drop}() macro in bpf_experimental.h Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:54 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2023-08-25 19:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/13] bpf: Mark OBJ_RELEASE argument as MEM_RCU when possible Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/13] selftests/bpf: Remove unnecessary direct read of local percpu kptr Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add tests for cgrp_local_storage with " Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/13] selftests/bpf: Add some negative tests Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 19:54 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 13/13] bpf: Mark BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_CGROUP_STORAGE deprecated Yonghong Song
2023-08-26 5:58 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/13] bpf: Add support for local percpu kptr Yonghong Song
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=20230825195409.96115-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.