From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpf-next PATCH v2 3/7] bpf: sockmap sample, use fork() for send
 and recv
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:57:18 -0800
Message-ID: <79e7710f-4f24-4199-bc0e-eea9a55adee6@gmail.com>
References: <20180110183600.5930.68261.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810>
 <20180110183937.5930.36362.stgit@john-Precision-Tower-5810>
 <20180111210853.7jnrkogn54hhavjj@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: borkmann@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:43835 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932860AbeALD52 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:57:28 -0500
Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id e3so3476201pfi.10
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:57:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20180111210853.7jnrkogn54hhavjj@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 01/11/2018 01:08 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:39:37AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> Currently for SENDMSG tests first send completes then recv runs. This
>> does not work well for large data sizes and/or many iterations. So
>> fork the recv and send handler so that we run both send and recv. In
>> the future we can add a parameter to do more than a single fork of
>> tx/rx.
>>
>> With this we can get many GBps of data which helps exercise the
>> sockmap code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
>> ---

[...]

>>  static int sendmsg_test(int iov_count, int iov_buf, int cnt, int verbose)
>>  {
>> +	int txpid, rxpid, err = 0;
>>  	struct msg_stats s = {0};
>> -	int err;
>> -
>> -	err = msg_loop(c1, iov_count, iov_buf, cnt, &s, true);
>> -	if (err) {
>> -		fprintf(stderr,
>> -			"msg_loop_tx: iov_count %i iov_buf %i cnt %i err %i\n",
>> -			iov_count, iov_buf, cnt, err);
>> -		return err;
>> +	int status;
>> +
>> +	errno = 0;
>> +
>> +	rxpid = fork();
>> +	if (rxpid == 0) {
>> +		err = msg_loop(p2, iov_count, iov_buf, cnt, &s, false);
>> +		if (err)
>> +			fprintf(stderr,
>> +				"msg_loop_rx: iov_count %i iov_buf %i cnt %i err %i\n",
>> +				iov_count, iov_buf, cnt, err);
>> +		fprintf(stdout, "rx_sendmsg: TX_bytes %zu RX_bytes %zu\n",
>> +			s.bytes_sent, s.bytes_recvd);
>> +		shutdown(p2, SHUT_RDWR);
>> +		shutdown(p1, SHUT_RDWR);
>> +		exit(1);
>> +	} else if (rxpid == -1) {
>> +		perror("msg_loop_rx: ");
>> +		err = errno;
> Bail out here instead of continuing the tx side?
> 

Sure makes sense. No point in running the TX side here I guess.