Hello Stanislas, Magnus, On 1/3/25 10:36, Magnus Karlsson wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 23:31, Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 12/20, Alexis Lothoré wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I was looking at other test candidates for conversion to bpf test_progs >>> framework (to increase automatic testing scope) and found test_xsk.sh, which >>> does not seem to have coverage yet in test_progs. This test validates the AF_XDP >>> socket behavior with different XDP modes (SKB, DRV, zero copy) and socket >>> configuration (normal, busy polling). >>> >>> The testing program looks pretty big, considering all files involved >>> (test_xsk.sh, xskxceiver.c, xsk.c, the different XDP programs) and the matrix of >>> tests it runs. So before really diving into it, I would like to ask: >>> - is it indeed a good/relevant target for integration in test_progs (all tests >>> look like functional tests, so I guess it is) ? >>> - if so, is there anyone already working on this ? >>> - multiple commits on xskxceiver.c hint that the program is also used for >>> testing on real hardware, could someone confirm that it is still the case >>> (similar need has been seen with test_xdp_features.sh for example) ? If so, it >>> means that the current form must be preserved, and it would be an additional >>> integration into test_progs rather a conversion (then most of the code should be >>> shared between the non-test_progs and the test_progs version) >> >> Since no one came back to you, here is my attempt to answer.. It is a >> good target but it is indeed a good idea to preserve the ability to >> run it outside of test_progs framework. Maybe we can eventually run >> it with the real hw (in loopback mode) from >> tools/testing/selftests/rivers/net/hw. And I don't think anybody >> is working on integrating it into test_progs. But Magnus/Maciej should >> have more context... > > Sorry Alexis for the late reply. I have enjoyed a long vacation over > the holidays. No worry, I did not expect quick answers with christmas holidays coming, thanks to both of you for your answers. > I agree with Stanislav's reply. The only thing I can add is that we > really want to preserve the ability to run on real HW as the majority > of bugs we find are indeed in the zero-copy driver implementations. So > these real HW/driver tests are more useful to us than the self > contained tests using veth. ACK. Based on your answers, and since test_xsk.sh seems to also cover many core features regarding AF_XDP sockets, I'll work on integrating this in test_progs. I'll see if the code can be shared between a "on hw" test and a "test progs" test, and if not possible (eg undesirable code dependency between different kind of selftests ?), at least replicate the basic AF_XDP tests in test_progs. Thanks, Alexis -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
