Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:50 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Update test_sockmap to add ktls tests and in the process make output
> > easier to understand and reduce overall runtime significantly. Before
> > this series test_sockmap did a poor job of tracking sent bytes causing
> > the recv thread to wait for a timeout even though all expected bytes
> > had been received. Doing this many times causes significant delays.
> > Further, we did many redundant tests because the send/recv test we used
> > was not specific to the parameters we were testing. For example testing
> > a failure case that always fails many times with different send sizes
> > is mostly useless. If the test condition catches 10B in the kernel code
> > testing 100B, 1kB, 4kB, and so on is just noise.
> >
> > The main motivation for this is to add ktls tests, the last patch. Until
> > now I have been running these locally but we haven't had them checked in
> > to selftests. And finally I'm hoping to get these pushed into the libbpf
> > test infrastructure so we can get more testing. For that to work we need
> > ability to white and blacklist tests based on kernel features so we add
> > that here as well.
> >
> > The new output looks like this broken into test groups with subtest
> > counters,
> >
> > $ time sudo ./test_sockmap
> > # 1/ 6 sockmap:txmsg test passthrough:OK
> > # 2/ 6 sockmap:txmsg test redirect:OK
> > ...
> > #22/ 1 sockhash:txmsg test push/pop data:OK
> > Pass: 22 Fail: 0
> >
> > real 0m9.790s
> > user 0m0.093s
> > sys 0m7.318s
> >
> > The old output printed individual subtest and was rather noisy
> >
> > $ time sudo ./test_sockmap
> > [TEST 0]: (1, 1, 1, sendmsg, pass,): PASS
> > ...
> > [TEST 823]: (16, 1, 100, sendpage, ... ,pop (1599,1609),): PASS
> > Summary: 824 PASSED 0 FAILED
> >
> > real 0m56.761s
> > user 0m0.455s
> > sys 0m31.757s
> >
> > So we are able to reduce time from ~56s to ~10s. To recover older more
> > verbose output simply run with --verbose option. To whitelist and
> > blacklist tests use the new --whitelist and --blacklist flags added. For
> > example to run cork sockhash tests but only ones that don't have a receive
> > hang (used to test negative cases) we could do,
> >
> > $ ./test_sockmap --whitelist="cork" --blacklist="sockmap,hang"
> >
> > ---
>
> A lot of this seems to be re-implementing good chunks of what we
> already have in test_progs. Would it make more sense to either extract
> test runner pieces from test_progs into something that can be easily
> re-used for creating other test runners or just fold all these test
> into test_progs framework? None of this code is fun to write and
> maintain, so I'd rather have less copies of it :)
I like having its own test runner for test_sockmap. At leat I like
having the CLI around to run arbitrary tests while doing devloping
of BPF programs and on the kernel side.
We could fold all the test progs into progs framework but because
I want to keep test_sockmap CLI around it didn't make much sense.
I would still need most the code for the tool.
So I think the best thing is to share as much code as possible.
I am working on a series behind this to share more code on the
socket attach, listend, send/recv side but seeing this series was
getting large and adds the ktls support which I want in selftests
asap I pushed it. Once test_sockmap starts using the shared socket
senders, receivers, etc. I hope lots of code will dissapper.
The next easy candidate is the cgroup helpers. test_progs has
test__join_cgroup() test_sockmap has equivelent.
Its possible we could have used the same prog_test_def{} struct
but it seemed a bit overkill to me for this the _test{} struct
and helpers is ~50 lines here. Getting the socket handling and
cgroup handling into helpers seems like a bigger win.
Maybe the blacklist/whitelist could be reused with some refactoring
and avoid one-off codei for that as well.
Bottom line for me is this series improves things a lot on
the test_sockmap side with a reasonable patch series size. I
agree with your sentiment though and would propose doing those
things in follow up series likely in this order: socket handlers,
cgroup handlers, tester structure.
Thanks!
>
> >
> > John Fastabend (10):
> > bpf: selftests, move sockmap bpf prog header into progs
> > bpf: selftests, remove prints from sockmap tests
> > bpf: selftests, sockmap test prog run without setting cgroup
> > bpf: selftests, print error in test_sockmap error cases
> > bpf: selftests, improve test_sockmap total bytes counter
> > bpf: selftests, break down test_sockmap into subtests
> > bpf: selftests, provide verbose option for selftests execution
> > bpf: selftests, add whitelist option to test_sockmap
> > bpf: selftests, add blacklist to test_sockmap
> > bpf: selftests, add ktls tests to test_sockmap
> >
> >
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_kern.h | 299 +++++++
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 911 ++++++++++----------
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap_kern.h | 451 ----------
> > 3 files changed, 769 insertions(+), 892 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_kern.h
> > delete mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap_kern.h
> >
> > --
> > Signature
