On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 05:50, Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Add a KUnit test for the kernel hashtable implementation in > include/linux/hashtable.h. > > Note that this version does not yet test each of the rcu > alternative versions of functions. > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- This looks good, and TBH, I could accept it as-is. There are a few very minor stylistic nitpicks below, but there are a couple of bigger issues, too: - DEFINE_HASHTABLE() should initialise the hashtable itself, so you shouldn't need to also call hash_init(). - It'd be nice if we had some hashtables of different sizes. At the moment, they're all 3-bit (8 entries). Let's mix it up a little bit. With those two changes (and optionally, any of the stylistic ones below), this is: Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- David > > Changes since v1: > - Change Kconfig.debug message to be more succinct. > - Directly increment current element's visited field rather than looking > up corresponding element. > - Use KUNIT_EXPECT_… statements to check keys are within range rather > than using if statements. > - Change hash_for_each_possible test to check buckets using a > hash_for_each method instead of calculating the bucket number using > hash_min. > > Note: The check patch script is outputting open brace errors on lines > 158, 192, 247 of lib/hashtable_test.c. However, I think these errors are > a mistake as the format of the braces on those lines seems consistent > with the Linux Kernel style guide. > This is a known issue with checkpatch and function names with "for_each" in them. It was discussed here, and we ultimately decided just to ignore the warnings: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABVgOSmCHbGjZBjeWSbPEZbJw22SaBQnoO77xxNzN_ugAwzNiQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > lib/Kconfig.debug | 13 ++ > lib/Makefile | 1 + > lib/hashtable_test.c | 326 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 340 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 lib/hashtable_test.c > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > index 881c3f84e88a..69b1452a3eeb 100644 > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > @@ -2496,6 +2496,19 @@ config LIST_KUNIT_TEST > > If unsure, say N. > > +config HASHTABLE_KUNIT_TEST > + tristate "KUnit Test for Kernel Hashtable structures" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + depends on KUNIT > + default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > + help > + This builds the hashtable KUnit test suite. > + It tests the basic functionality of the API defined in > + include/linux/hashtable.h. For more information on KUnit and > + unit tests in general please refer to the KUnit documentation > + in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/. > + > + If unsure, say N. > + > config LINEAR_RANGES_TEST > tristate "KUnit test for linear_ranges" > depends on KUNIT > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile > index 4d9461bfea42..5f8efbe8e97f 100644 > --- a/lib/Makefile > +++ b/lib/Makefile > @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PLDMFW) += pldmfw/ > CFLAGS_bitfield_kunit.o := $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) > obj-$(CONFIG_BITFIELD_KUNIT) += bitfield_kunit.o > obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_HASHTABLE_KUNIT_TEST) += hashtable_test.o > obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o > obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o > obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o > diff --git a/lib/hashtable_test.c b/lib/hashtable_test.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..ab09b747d83d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/lib/hashtable_test.c > @@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * KUnit test for the Kernel Hashtable structures. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2022, Google LLC. > + * Author: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> > + */ > +#include <kunit/test.h> > + > +#include <linux/hashtable.h> > + > +struct hashtable_test_entry { > + int key; > + int data; > + struct hlist_node node; > + int visited; > +}; > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_init(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + /* Test the different ways of initialising a hashtable. */ > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash1, 3); > + DECLARE_HASHTABLE(hash2, 3); As I understand it, DEFINE_HASHTABLE shouldn't need a hash_init(), but DECLARE_HASHTABLE() does? Could we make that clearer (and in so doing, get rid of the hash_init for all hashtables which were DEFINE_HASHTABLE()ed? > + > + hash_init(hash1); > + hash_init(hash2); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, hash_empty(hash1)); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, hash_empty(hash2)); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_empty(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry a; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + hash_init(hash); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, hash_empty(hash)); > + > + a.key = 1; > + a.data = 13; I guess it doesn't matter what (if any) data is in 'a', so this isn't strictly necessary. I don't mind having it though, as it's nice to have some actual data to add. If you really wanted, you could just add a struct hlist_node directly, rather than struct hashtable_test_entry, though again, this is a more realistic-looking test as-is, so I'm okay with keeping it. > + hash_add(hash, &a.node, a.key); > + > + /* Hashtable should no longer be empty. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, hash_empty(hash)); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_hashed(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry a, b; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + hash_init(hash); > + a.key = 1; > + a.data = 13; > + b.key = 1; > + b.data = 2; > + Nit: I might put the initialisation of the data in the same block as adding them. Or possibly do something like: a.key = 1; a.data = …; hash_add(…); b.key = 1; b.data = …; hash_add(…); Not something I actually care too much about, though: this is readable enough as-is. > + hash_add(hash, &a.node, a.key); > + hash_add(hash, &b.node, b.key); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, hash_hashed(&a.node)); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, hash_hashed(&b.node)); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_add(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry a, b, *x; > + int bkt; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + hash_init(hash); > + a.key = 1; > + a.data = 13; > + a.visited = 0; > + b.key = 2; > + b.data = 10; > + b.visited = 0; > + > + hash_add(hash, &a.node, a.key); > + hash_add(hash, &b.node, b.key); As above, can we reorder these to do everything with a, then everything with b (and remove the hash_init)? > + > + hash_for_each(hash, bkt, x, node) { > + x->visited++; > + if (x->key == a.key) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, x->data, 13); > + else if (x->key == b.key) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, x->data, 10); > + else > + KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Unexpected key in hashtable."); > + } > + > + /* Both entries should have been visited exactly once. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, a.visited, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, b.visited, 1); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_del(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry a, b, *x; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + hash_init(hash); > + a.key = 1; > + a.data = 13; > + b.key = 2; > + b.data = 10; > + b.visited = 0; > + > + hash_add(hash, &a.node, a.key); > + hash_add(hash, &b.node, b.key); As above, maybe adjust the spacing here. Though, to be honest, I don't think it matters _quite_ as much once you get rid of hash_init(). Still probably better to do [init a][add a][init b][add b], IMO, though. > + > + hash_del(&b.node); > + hash_for_each_possible(hash, x, node, b.key) { > + x->visited++; > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, x->key, b.key); > + } > + > + /* The deleted entry should not have been visited. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, b.visited, 0); > + > + hash_del(&a.node); > + > + /* The hashtable should be empty. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, hash_empty(hash)); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_for_each(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry entries[3]; > + struct hashtable_test_entry *x; > + int bkt, i, j, count; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + /* Initialize a hashtable with three entries. */ > + hash_init(hash); > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { > + entries[i].key = i; > + entries[i].data = i + 10; > + entries[i].visited = 0; > + hash_add(hash, &entries[i].node, entries[i].key); > + } > + > + count = 0; > + hash_for_each(hash, bkt, x, node) { > + x->visited += 1; > + KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, x->key, 0); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, x->key, 3); > + count++; > + } > + > + /* Should have visited each entry exactly once. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 3); > + for (j = 0; j < 3; j++) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[j].visited, 1); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_for_each_safe(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry entries[3]; > + struct hashtable_test_entry *x; > + struct hlist_node *tmp; > + int bkt, i, j, count; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + /* Initialize a hashtable with three entries. */ > + hash_init(hash); > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { > + entries[i].key = i; > + entries[i].data = i + 10; > + entries[i].visited = 0; > + hash_add(hash, &entries[i].node, entries[i].key); > + } > + > + count = 0; > + hash_for_each_safe(hash, bkt, tmp, x, node) { > + x->visited += 1; > + KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, x->key, 0); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, x->key, 3); > + count++; > + > + /* Delete entry during loop. */ > + hash_del(&x->node); > + } > + > + /* Should have visited each entry exactly once. */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 3); > + for (j = 0; j < 3; j++) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[j].visited, 1); > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_for_each_possible(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry entries[4]; > + struct hashtable_test_entry *x, *y; > + int buckets[2]; > + int bkt, i, j, count; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + /* Initialize a hashtable with three entries with key = 0. */ > + hash_init(hash); > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { > + entries[i].key = 0; > + entries[i].data = i; > + entries[i].visited = 0; > + hash_add(hash, &entries[i].node, entries[i].key); > + } > + > + /* Add an entry with key = 1. */ > + entries[3].key = 1; > + entries[3].data = 3; > + entries[3].visited = 0; > + hash_add(hash, &entries[3].node, entries[3].key); > + > + count = 0; > + hash_for_each_possible(hash, x, node, 0) { > + x->visited += 1; > + KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, x->data, 0); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, x->data, 4); > + count++; > + } > + > + /* Should have visited each entry with key = 0 exactly once. */ > + for (j = 0; j < 3; j++) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[j].visited, 1); > + > + /* Save the buckets for the different keys. */ > + hash_for_each(hash, bkt, y, node) { > + if (y->key < 0 || y->key > 1) > + KUNIT_ASSERT_FAILURE(test, "Unexpected key in hashtable."); Nit: could we just use KUNIT_ASSERT_LEQ() and KUNIT_ASSERT_GEQ() here? (Or better still, their _MSG variants)? > + buckets[y->key] = bkt; > + } > + > + /* If entry with key = 1 is in the same bucket as the entries with > + * key = 0, check it was visited. Otherwise ensure that only three > + * entries were visited. > + */ > + if (buckets[0] == buckets[1]) { > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 4); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[3].visited, 1); > + } else { > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 3); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[3].visited, 0); > + } > +} > + > +static void hashtable_test_hash_for_each_possible_safe(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct hashtable_test_entry entries[4]; > + struct hashtable_test_entry *x, *y; > + struct hlist_node *tmp; > + int buckets[2]; > + int bkt, i, j, count; > + DEFINE_HASHTABLE(hash, 3); > + > + /* Initialize a hashtable with three entries with key = 0. */ > + hash_init(hash); > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) { > + entries[i].key = 0; > + entries[i].data = i; > + entries[i].visited = 0; > + hash_add(hash, &entries[i].node, entries[i].key); > + } > + > + /* Add an entry with key = 1. */ > + entries[3].key = 1; > + entries[3].data = 3; > + entries[3].visited = 0; > + hash_add(hash, &entries[3].node, entries[3].key); > + > + count = 0; > + hash_for_each_possible_safe(hash, x, tmp, node, 0) { > + x->visited += 1; > + KUNIT_ASSERT_GE(test, x->data, 0); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_LT(test, x->data, 4); > + count++; > + > + /* Delete entry during loop. */ > + hash_del(&x->node); > + } > + > + /* Should have visited each entry with key = 0 exactly once. */ > + for (j = 0; j < 3; j++) > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[j].visited, 1); > + > + /* Save the buckets for the different keys. */ > + hash_for_each(hash, bkt, y, node) { > + if (y->key < 0 || y->key > 1) > + KUNIT_ASSERT_FAILURE(test, "Unexpected key in hashtable."); Nit: could we just use KUNIT_ASSERT_LEQ() and KUNIT_ASSERT_GEQ() here? (Or better still, their _MSG variants)? > + buckets[y->key] = bkt; > + } > + > + /* If entry with key = 1 is in the same bucket as the entries with > + * key = 0, check it was visited. Otherwise ensure that only three > + * entries were visited. > + */ > + if (buckets[0] == buckets[1]) { > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 4); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[3].visited, 1); > + } else { > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, 3); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, entries[3].visited, 0); > + } > +} > + > +static struct kunit_case hashtable_test_cases[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_init), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_empty), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_hashed), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_add), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_del), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_for_each), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_for_each_safe), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_for_each_possible), > + KUNIT_CASE(hashtable_test_hash_for_each_possible_safe), > + {}, > +}; > + > +static struct kunit_suite hashtable_test_module = { > + .name = "hashtable", > + .test_cases = hashtable_test_cases, > +}; > + > +kunit_test_suites(&hashtable_test_module); > + > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > base-commit: 88603b6dc419445847923fcb7fe5080067a30f98 > -- > 2.39.0.314.g84b9a713c41-goog >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
