On 3/28/23 6:20 AM, Yixin Shen wrote:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tcp_ca_write_app_limited.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tcp_ca_write_app_limited.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..de5c9b5045a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tcp_ca_write_app_limited.c
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include "vmlinux.h"
+
+#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
+#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
+
+char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
+
+#define USEC_PER_SEC 1000000UL
+
+#define min(a, b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))
+
+static inline struct tcp_sock *tcp_sk(const struct sock *sk)
+{
+ return (struct tcp_sock *)sk;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int tcp_left_out(const struct tcp_sock *tp)
+{
+ return tp->sacked_out + tp->lost_out;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int tcp_packets_in_flight(const struct tcp_sock *tp)
+{
+ return tp->packets_out - tcp_left_out(tp) + tp->retrans_out;
+}
+
+SEC("struct_ops/write_app_limited_init")
+void BPF_PROG(write_app_limited_init, struct sock *sk)
+{
+#ifdef ENABLE_ATOMICS_TESTS
+ __sync_bool_compare_and_swap(&sk->sk_pacing_status, SK_PACING_NONE,
+ SK_PACING_NEEDED);
+#else
+ sk->sk_pacing_status = SK_PACING_NEEDED;
+#endif
+}
+
+SEC("struct_ops/write_app_limited_cong_control")
+void BPF_PROG(write_app_limited_cong_control, struct sock *sk,
+ const struct rate_sample *rs)
+{
+ struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
+ unsigned long rate =
+ ((tp->snd_cwnd * tp->mss_cache * USEC_PER_SEC) << 3) /
+ (tp->srtt_us ?: 1U << 3);
+ sk->sk_pacing_rate = min(rate, sk->sk_max_pacing_rate);
+ tp->app_limited = (tp->delivered + tcp_packets_in_flight(tp)) ?: 1;
Please add this line testing tp->app_limited to tcp_ca_write_sk_pacing.c instead
of creating a new bpf prog that looks pretty much the same.
Also tag the subject with bpf-next in v2.
Others lgtm.
