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 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test for bpf_cpumask_weight() kfunc
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 15:08:43 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231207210843.168466-3-void@manifault.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231207210843.168466-1-void@manifault.com>
The new bpf_cpumask_weight() kfunc can be used to count the number of
bits that are set in a struct cpumask* kptr. Let's add a selftest to
verify its behavior.
Signed-off-by: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c | 1 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h | 1 +
.../selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c
index 756ea8b590b6..c2e886399e3c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cpumask.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ static const char * const cpumask_success_testcases[] = {
"test_insert_leave",
"test_insert_remove_release",
"test_global_mask_rcu",
+ "test_cpumask_weight",
};
static void verify_success(const char *prog_name)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h
index b15c588ace15..0cd4aebb97cf 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_common.h
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ bool bpf_cpumask_full(const struct cpumask *cpumask) __ksym;
void bpf_cpumask_copy(struct bpf_cpumask *dst, const struct cpumask *src) __ksym;
u32 bpf_cpumask_any_distribute(const struct cpumask *src) __ksym;
u32 bpf_cpumask_any_and_distribute(const struct cpumask *src1, const struct cpumask *src2) __ksym;
+u32 bpf_cpumask_weight(const struct cpumask *cpumask) __ksym;
void bpf_rcu_read_lock(void) __ksym;
void bpf_rcu_read_unlock(void) __ksym;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c
index 674a63424dee..fc3666edf456 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/cpumask_success.c
@@ -460,6 +460,49 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_global_mask_rcu, struct task_struct *task, u64 clone_flags)
return 0;
}
+SEC("tp_btf/task_newtask")
+int BPF_PROG(test_cpumask_weight, struct task_struct *task, u64 clone_flags)
+{
+ struct bpf_cpumask *local;
+
+ if (!is_test_task())
+ return 0;
+
+ local = create_cpumask();
+ if (!local)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (bpf_cpumask_weight(cast(local)) != 0) {
+ err = 3;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ bpf_cpumask_set_cpu(0, local);
+ if (bpf_cpumask_weight(cast(local)) != 1) {
+ err = 4;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure that adding additional CPUs changes the weight. Test to
+ * see whether the CPU was set to account for running on UP machines.
+ */
+ bpf_cpumask_set_cpu(1, local);
+ if (bpf_cpumask_test_cpu(1, cast(local)) && bpf_cpumask_weight(cast(local)) != 2) {
+ err = 5;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ bpf_cpumask_clear(local);
+ if (bpf_cpumask_weight(cast(local)) != 0) {
+ err = 6;
+ goto out;
+ }
+out:
+ bpf_cpumask_release(local);
+ return 0;
+}
+
SEC("tp_btf/task_newtask")
__success
int BPF_PROG(test_refcount_null_tracking, struct task_struct *task, u64 clone_flags)
--
2.42.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-07 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-07 21:08 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Add new bpf_cpumask_weight() kfunc David Vernet
2023-12-07 21:08 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Add " David Vernet
2023-12-08 4:37 ` Yonghong Song
2023-12-07 21:08 ` David Vernet [this message]
2023-12-08 4:39 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add test for " Yonghong Song
2023-12-10 5:40 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] Add new " 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=20231207210843.168466-3-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 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.