On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 3:49 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Add selftests for the newly added bits iter.
> - bits_iter_success
> - The number of CPUs should be expected when iterating over a cpumask
> - percpu data extracted from the percpu struct should be expected
> - RCU lock is not required
> - It is fine without calling bpf_iter_cpumask_next()
> - It can work as expected when invalid arguments are passed
>
> - bits_iter_failure
> - bpf_iter_bits_destroy() is required after calling
> bpf_iter_bits_new()
> - bpf_iter_bits_destroy() can only destroy an initialized iter
> - bpf_iter_bits_next() must use an initialized iter
>
> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config | 1 +
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bits_iter.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++++
> .../bpf/progs/test_bits_iter_failure.c | 53 ++++++
> .../bpf/progs/test_bits_iter_success.c | 146 ++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 380 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bits_iter.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bits_iter_failure.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bits_iter_success.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
> index 01f241ea2c67..dd4b0935e35f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_MARK=y
> CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV4=y
> CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV6=y
> CONFIG_NF_NAT=y
> +CONFIG_PSI=y
> CONFIG_RC_CORE=y
> CONFIG_SECURITY=y
> CONFIG_SECURITYFS=y
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bits_iter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bits_iter.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..778a7c942dba
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bits_iter.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2024 Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> */
> +
> +#define _GNU_SOURCE
> +#include <sched.h>
> +
> +#include <test_progs.h>
> +#include "test_bits_iter_success.skel.h"
> +#include "test_bits_iter_failure.skel.h"
> +#include "cgroup_helpers.h"
> +
> +static const char * const positive_testcases[] = {
> + "cpumask_iter",
> +};
> +
> +static const char * const negative_testcases[] = {
> + "null_pointer",
> + "zero_bit",
> + "no_mem",
> + "invalid_bits"
> +};
> +
> +static int read_percpu_data(struct bpf_link *link, int nr_cpu_exp, int nr_running_exp)
> +{
> + int iter_fd, len, item, nr_running, psi_running, nr_cpus, err = -1;
> + char buf[128];
> + size_t left;
> + char *p;
> +
> + iter_fd = bpf_iter_create(bpf_link__fd(link));
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(iter_fd, 0, "iter_fd"))
> + return -1;
> +
> + memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
> + left = ARRAY_SIZE(buf);
> + p = buf;
> + while ((len = read(iter_fd, p, left)) > 0) {
> + p += len;
> + left -= len;
> + }
> +
> + item = sscanf(buf, "nr_running %u nr_cpus %u psi_running %u\n",
> + &nr_running, &nr_cpus, &psi_running);
> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(item, 3, "seq_format"))
> + goto out;
> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(nr_cpus, nr_cpu_exp, "nr_cpus"))
> + goto out;
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(nr_running, nr_running_exp, "nr_running"))
> + goto out;
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(psi_running, nr_running_exp, "psi_running"))
> + goto out;
> +
> + err = 0;
> +out:
> + close(iter_fd);
> + return err;
> +}
..
> +
> + /* Case 1): Enable all possible CPUs */
> + CPU_ZERO(&set);
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i++)
> + CPU_SET(i, &set);
> + err = sched_setaffinity(skel->bss->pid, sizeof(set), &set);
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "setaffinity_all_cpus"))
> + goto free_link;
> + err = read_percpu_data(link, nr_cpus, 1);
> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "read_percpu_data"))
> + goto free_link;
The patch 1 looks good, but this test fails on s390.
read_percpu_data:FAIL:nr_cpus unexpected nr_cpus: actual 0 != expected 2
verify_iter_success:FAIL:read_percpu_data unexpected error: -1 (errno 95)
Please see CI.
So either add it to DENYLIST.s390x in the same commit or make it work.
pw-bot: cr
