Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add selftest for bits iter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 7:52 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 10:29 +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 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
> >
> > The reason for the failure on s390x architecture is currently unclear.
> > One plausible explanation is that total_nr_cpus remains 0 when
> > executing the following code:
> >
> >     bpf_for_each(bits, cpu, p->cpus_ptr, total_nr_cpus)
> >
> > This is despite setting total_nr_cpus to the value obtained from
> > libbpf_num_possible_cpus():
> >
> >     skel->bss->total_nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> >
> > A potential workaround could involve using a hardcoded number of CPUs,
> > such as 8192, instead of relying on total_nr_cpus. This approach might
> > mitigate the issue temporarily.
>
> I'm sorry, but is it really necessary to deal with total number of
> CPUs in a test for bit iterator?

The CPU number verification is served to validate the functionality of
bpf_iter_bits_next(). However, I believe we can streamline the logic
by removing the surrounding code.

> Tbh, cpumask_iter / verify_iter_success seem to be over-complicated.
> Would it be possible to reuse test_loader.c's RUN_TESTS for this feature?
> It supports __retval(...) annotation, so it should be possible to:
> - create a map (even a constant map) with some known data;
> - peek a BPF program type that supports BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN syscall command;
> - organize test BPF programs so that they create bit iterators for
>   this test data and return some expected quantities (e.g. a sum),
>   verified by __retval.
>
> This should limit the amount of code on prog_tests/*.c side
> to the bare minimum.

Thank you for your suggestion. I will consider it carefully.

-- 
Regards
Yafang





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux