On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:02 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:01 PM Denis Salopek <denis.salopek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This patch series extends the existing bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_elem() > > functionality with 4 more map types: > > - BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH, > > - BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH, > > - BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH and > > - BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_PERCPU_HASH. > > > > Patch 1 adds most of its functionality and logic as well as > > documentation. > > > > As it was previously limited to only stacks and queues which do not > > support the BPF_F_LOCK flag, patch 2 enables its usage by adding a new > > libbpf API bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_elem_flags() based on the existing > > bpf_map_lookup_elem_flags(). > > > > Patch 3 adds selftests for lookup_and_delete_elem(). > > > > Changes in patch 1: > > v7: Minor formating nits, add Acked-by. > > v6: Remove unneeded flag check, minor code/format fixes. > > v5: Split patch to 3 patches. Extend BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_AND_DELETE_ELEM > > documentation with this changes. > > v4: Fix the return value for unsupported map types. > > v3: Add bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_elem_flags() and enable BPF_F_LOCK > > flag, change CHECKs to ASSERT_OKs, initialize variables to 0. > > v2: Add functionality for LRU/per-CPU, add test_progs tests. > > > > Changes in patch 2: > > v7: No change. > > v6: Add Acked-by. > > v5: Move to the newest libbpf version (0.4.0). > > > > Changes in patch 3: > > v7: Remove ASSERT_GE macro which is already added in some other commit, > > change ASSERT_OK to ASSERT_OK_PTR, add Acked-by. > > v6: Remove PERCPU macros, add ASSERT_GE macro to test_progs.h, remove > > leftover code. > > v5: Use more appropriate macros. Better check for changed value. > > > > Denis Salopek (3): > > bpf: add lookup_and_delete_elem support to hashtab > > bpf: extend libbpf with bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_elem_flags > > selftests/bpf: add bpf_lookup_and_delete_elem tests > > Hey Denis, I've noticed a new failure for the tests you added: setup_prog:PASS:test_lookup_and_delete__open 0 nsec setup_prog:PASS:bpf_map__set_type 0 nsec setup_prog:PASS:bpf_map__set_max_entries 0 nsec setup_prog:PASS:test_lookup_and_delete__load 0 nsec setup_prog:PASS:bpf_map__fd 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:PASS:setup_prog 0 nsec fill_values:PASS:bpf_map_update_elem 0 nsec fill_values:PASS:bpf_map_update_elem 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:PASS:fill_values 0 nsec trigger_tp:PASS:test_lookup_and_delete__attach 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:PASS:trigger_tp 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:PASS:bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_elem 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:PASS:bpf_map_lookup_and_delete_elem 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:PASS:bpf_map_lookup_elem 0 nsec test_lookup_and_delete_lru_hash:FAIL:bpf_map_lookup_elem unexpected success: 0 #67/3 lookup_and_delete_lru:FAIL I haven't seen this before, probably some timing assumptions or something. Can you please check and see if there is anything we can do to make the test more reliable? See https://app.travis-ci.com/github/kernel-patches/bpf/builds/233733889 for the complete test run log. Thanks! > > include/linux/bpf.h | 2 + > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 13 + > > kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 98 ++++++ > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 34 ++- > > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 13 + > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 13 + > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 2 + > > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 1 + > > .../bpf/prog_tests/lookup_and_delete.c | 288 ++++++++++++++++++ > > .../bpf/progs/test_lookup_and_delete.c | 26 ++ > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lru_map.c | 8 + > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 17 ++ > > 12 files changed, 511 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lookup_and_delete.c > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lookup_and_delete.c > > > > -- > > 2.26.2 > > > > Patchbot is having a bad day... > > Applied to bpf-next, thanks. Fixed up a small merge conflict in libbpf.map.
