> On Sep 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Song Liu wrote: >> This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx >> input, retval output, and running on correct cpu. >> >> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> >> --- > > [...] > >> +void test_raw_tp_test_run(void) >> +{ >> + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr test_attr = {}; >> + int comm_fd = -1, err, nr_online, i, prog_fd; >> + __u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL}; >> + int expected_retval = 0x1234 + 0x5678; >> + struct test_raw_tp_test_run *skel; >> + char buf[] = "new_name"; >> + bool *online = NULL; >> + >> + err = parse_cpu_mask_file("/sys/devices/system/cpu/online", &online, >> + &nr_online); >> + if (CHECK(err, "parse_cpu_mask_file", "err %d\n", err)) >> + return; >> + >> + skel = test_raw_tp_test_run__open_and_load(); >> + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open", "failed to open skeleton\n")) >> + goto cleanup; >> + >> + err = test_raw_tp_test_run__attach(skel); >> + if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed: %d\n", err)) >> + goto cleanup; >> + >> + comm_fd = open("/proc/self/comm", O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC); >> + if (CHECK(comm_fd < 0, "open /proc/self/comm", "err %d\n", errno)) >> + goto cleanup; >> + >> + err = write(comm_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "task rename", "err %d", errno); >> + >> + CHECK(skel->bss->count == 0, "check_count", "didn't increase\n"); >> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != 0xffffffff, "check_on_cpu", "got wrong value\n"); >> + >> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.rename); >> + test_attr.prog_fd = prog_fd; >> + test_attr.ctx_in = args; >> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(__u64); >> + >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); >> + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n"); >> + >> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno); >> + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval", >> + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) { >> + if (online[i]) { >> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, >> + .ctx_in = args, >> + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args), >> + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU, >> + .retval = 0, >> + .cpu = i, >> + ); >> + >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); >> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno); >> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu", >> + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu); >> + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval, >> + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", >> + expected_retval, opts.retval); >> + >> + if (i == 0) { >> + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */ >> + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff; >> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts); >> + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO, >> + "test_run_opts_fail", >> + "should failed with ENXIO\n"); >> + } else { > > One more request... > > How about pull this if/else branch out of the for loop here? It feels a bit > clumsy as-is imo. Also is it worthwhile to bang on the else branch for evey > cpu I would think testing for any non-zero value should be sufficient. I thought about both these two directions. The biggest benefit of current version is that we can reuse the DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS() in this loop. Moving it to the beginning of the function bothers me a little bit.. Thanks, Song