Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: work-around EBUSY errors from hashmap update/delete

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

 



On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 3:58 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 2020, at 11:53 AM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 20b6cc34ea74 ("bpf: Avoid hashtab deadlock with map_locked") introduced
> > a possibility of getting EBUSY error on lock contention, which seems to happen
> > very deterministically in test_maps when running 1024 threads on low-CPU
> > machine. In libbpf CI case, it's a 2 CPU VM and it's hitting this 100% of the
> > time. Work around by retrying on EBUSY (and EAGAIN, while we are at it) after
> > a small sleep. sched_yield() is too agressive and fails even after 20 retries,
> > so I went with usleep(1) for backoff.
> >
> > Also log actual error returned to make it easier to see what's going on.
> >
> > Fixes: 20b6cc34ea74 ("bpf: Avoid hashtab deadlock with map_locked")
> > Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for the fix!
>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
>
> With one minor nitpick below
>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
> > index 0ad3e6305ff0..809004f4995f 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
> > @@ -1312,22 +1312,56 @@ static void test_map_stress(void)
> > #define DO_UPDATE 1
> > #define DO_DELETE 0
>
> [...]
>
> > +                             printf("error %d %d\n", err, errno);
> > +                     assert(err == 0);
> > +                     err = map_update_retriable(fd, &key, &value, BPF_EXIST, 20);
> > +                     if (err)
> > +                             printf("error %d %d\n", err, errno);
> > +                     assert(err == 0);
> >               } else {
> > -                     assert(bpf_map_delete_elem(fd, &key) == 0);
> > +                     err = map_delete_retriable(fd, &key, 5);
>
> nit: Why 5 here vs. 20 above?

Forgot to update here. I'll make all of them the same, thanks.

>
> > +                     if (err)
> > +                             printf("error %d %d\n", err, errno);
> > +                     assert(err == 0);
> >               }
> >       }
> > }
> > --
> > 2.24.1
> >
>



[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