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 21:09 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox