From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@gmail.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, bjorn@kernel.org, magnus.karlsson@intel.com,
maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com, jonathan.lemon@gmail.com,
sdf@fomichev.me, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, joe@dama.to,
willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] selftests/bpf: add a new test to check the consumer update case
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 09:03:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aGVYNMZEZQV1SetF@mini-arch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250702112815.50746-3-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
On 07/02, Jason Xing wrote:
> From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
>
> The subtest sends 33 packets at one time on purpose to see if xsk
> exitting __xsk_generic_xmit() updates the global consumer of tx queue
> when reaching the max loop (max_tx_budget, 32 by default). The number 33
> can avoid xskq_cons_peek_desc() updates the consumer when it's about to
> quit sending, to accurately check if the issue that the first patch
> resolves remains. The new case will not check this issue in zero copy
> mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>
> ---
> v5
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250627085745.53173-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
> 1. use the initial approach to add a new testcase
> 2. add a new flag 'check_consumer' to see if the check is needed
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> index 0ced4026ee44..ed12a55ecf2a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@
>
> #include <network_helpers.h>
>
> +#define MAX_TX_BUDGET_DEFAULT 32
> +
> static bool opt_verbose;
> static bool opt_print_tests;
> static enum test_mode opt_mode = TEST_MODE_ALL;
> @@ -1091,11 +1093,45 @@ static bool is_pkt_valid(struct pkt *pkt, void *buffer, u64 addr, u32 len)
> return true;
> }
>
> +static u32 load_value(u32 *counter)
> +{
> + return __atomic_load_n(counter, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +}
> +
> +static bool kick_tx_with_check(struct xsk_socket_info *xsk, int *ret)
> +{
> + u32 max_budget = MAX_TX_BUDGET_DEFAULT;
> + u32 cons, ready_to_send;
> + int delta;
> +
> + cons = load_value(xsk->tx.consumer);
> + ready_to_send = load_value(xsk->tx.producer) - cons;
> + *ret = sendto(xsk_socket__fd(xsk->xsk), NULL, 0, MSG_DONTWAIT, NULL, 0);
> +
> + delta = load_value(xsk->tx.consumer) - cons;
> + /* By default, xsk should consume exact @max_budget descs at one
> + * send in this case where hitting the max budget limit in while
> + * loop is triggered in __xsk_generic_xmit(). Please make sure that
> + * the number of descs to be sent is larger than @max_budget, or
> + * else the tx.consumer will be updated in xskq_cons_peek_desc()
> + * in time which hides the issue we try to verify.
> + */
> + if (ready_to_send > max_budget && delta != max_budget)
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int kick_tx(struct xsk_socket_info *xsk)
> {
> int ret;
>
> - ret = sendto(xsk_socket__fd(xsk->xsk), NULL, 0, MSG_DONTWAIT, NULL, 0);
> + if (xsk->check_consumer) {
> + if (!kick_tx_with_check(xsk, &ret))
> + return TEST_FAILURE;
> + } else {
> + ret = sendto(xsk_socket__fd(xsk->xsk), NULL, 0, MSG_DONTWAIT, NULL, 0);
> + }
> if (ret >= 0)
> return TEST_PASS;
> if (errno == ENOBUFS || errno == EAGAIN || errno == EBUSY || errno == ENETDOWN) {
> @@ -2613,6 +2649,18 @@ static int testapp_adjust_tail_grow_mb(struct test_spec *test)
> XSK_UMEM__LARGE_FRAME_SIZE * 2);
> }
>
> +static int testapp_tx_queue_consumer(struct test_spec *test)
> +{
> + int nr_packets = MAX_TX_BUDGET_DEFAULT + 1;
> +
> + pkt_stream_replace(test, nr_packets, MIN_PKT_SIZE);
> + test->ifobj_tx->xsk->batch_size = nr_packets;
> + if (!(test->mode & TEST_MODE_ZC))
> + test->ifobj_tx->xsk->check_consumer = true;
The test looks good to me, thank you!
One question here: why not exit/return for TEST_MODE_ZC instead
of conditionally setting check_consumer?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-02 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-02 11:28 [PATCH net-next v5 0/2] net: xsk: update tx queue consumer Jason Xing
2025-07-02 11:28 ` [PATCH net-next v5 1/2] net: xsk: update tx queue consumer immediately after transmission Jason Xing
2025-07-02 11:28 ` [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] selftests/bpf: add a new test to check the consumer update case Jason Xing
2025-07-02 16:03 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message]
2025-07-02 23:09 ` Jason Xing
2025-07-03 12:37 ` Maciej Fijalkowski
2025-07-03 13:16 ` Jason Xing
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=aGVYNMZEZQV1SetF@mini-arch \
--to=stfomichev@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=joe@dama.to \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \
--cc=kerneljasonxing@gmail.com \
--cc=kernelxing@tencent.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
/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