On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:04 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:37 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Make these non-serial tests filter BPF programs by intended PID of
> > a test runner process. This makes it isolated from other parallel tests
> > that might interfere accidentally.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c | 3 +++
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c | 7 +++++++
> > .../selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage.c | 4 ++++
> > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
> > index 9541e9b3a034..343da65864d6 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ static void test_array(void)
> > bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_3, true);
> > bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_4, true);
> >
> > + skel->bss->my_pid = getpid();
> > skel->rodata->nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> >
> > err = percpu_alloc_array__load(skel);
> > @@ -51,6 +52,7 @@ static void test_array_sleepable(void)
> >
> > bpf_program__set_autoload(skel->progs.test_array_map_10, true);
> >
> > + skel->bss->my_pid = getpid();
> > skel->rodata->nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> >
> > err = percpu_alloc_array__load(skel);
> > @@ -85,6 +87,7 @@ static void test_cgrp_local_storage(void)
> > if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage__open"))
> > goto close_fd;
> >
> > + skel->bss->my_pid = getpid();
> > skel->rodata->nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> >
> > err = percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage__load(skel);
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c
> > index bbc45346e006..37c2d2608ec0 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_array.c
> > @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_2)
> > }
> >
> > int cpu0_field_d, sum_field_c;
> > +int my_pid;
> >
> > /* Summarize percpu data */
> > SEC("?fentry/bpf_fentry_test3")
> > @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_3)
> > struct val_t *v;
> > struct elem *e;
> >
> > + if ((bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32) != my_pid)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
> > if (!e)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -130,6 +134,9 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_array_map_10)
> > struct val_t *v;
> > struct elem *e;
> >
> > + if ((bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32) != my_pid)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > e = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &index);
> > if (!e)
> > return 0;
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage.c
> > index 1c36a241852c..a2acf9aa6c24 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage.c
> > @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_cgrp_local_storage_2)
> > }
> >
> > int cpu0_field_d, sum_field_c;
> > +int my_pid;
> >
> > /* Summarize percpu data collection */
> > SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test3")
> > @@ -81,6 +82,9 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_cgrp_local_storage_3)
> > struct elem *e;
> > int i;
> >
> > + if ((bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32) != my_pid)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > task = bpf_get_current_task_btf();
>
> a small nit.
>
> We have already got the current task. Should we better use
>
> if (task->pid != my_pid)
>
> instead ?
>
doesn't matter, it's a standard snippet of code we have in all the
tests that might have interference from parallel tests
> > e = bpf_cgrp_storage_get(&cgrp, task->cgroups->dfl_cgrp, 0, 0);
> > if (!e)
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Yafang
