Add tests for new API ring__consume_n() and ring_buffer__consume_n().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
index 48c5695b7abf..33aba7684ab9 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
@@ -304,10 +304,18 @@ static void ringbuf_subtest(void)
err = ring_buffer__consume(ringbuf);
CHECK(err < 0, "rb_consume", "failed: %d\b", err);
+ /* try to consume up to one item */
+ err = ring_buffer__consume_n(ringbuf, 1);
+ CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "rb_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
+
/* also consume using ring__consume to make sure it works the same */
err = ring__consume(ring);
ASSERT_GE(err, 0, "ring_consume");
+ /* try to consume up to one item */
+ err = ring__consume_n(ring, 1);
+ CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "ring_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
+
/* 3 rounds, 2 samples each */
cnt = atomic_xchg(&sample_cnt, 0);
CHECK(cnt != 6, "cnt", "exp %d samples, got %d\n", 6, cnt);
--
2.43.0
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:20 AM Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonicalcom> wrote:
>
> Add tests for new API ring__consume_n() and ring_buffer__consume_n().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> index 48c5695b7abf..33aba7684ab9 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> @@ -304,10 +304,18 @@ static void ringbuf_subtest(void)
> err = ring_buffer__consume(ringbuf);
> CHECK(err < 0, "rb_consume", "failed: %d\b", err);
>
> + /* try to consume up to one item */
> + err = ring_buffer__consume_n(ringbuf, 1);
> + CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "rb_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
> +
> /* also consume using ring__consume to make sure it works the same */
> err = ring__consume(ring);
> ASSERT_GE(err, 0, "ring_consume");
>
> + /* try to consume up to one item */
> + err = ring__consume_n(ring, 1);
> + CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "ring_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
> +
Did you actually run this test? There is ring_buffer__consume() and
ring__consume() calls right before your added calls, so consume_n will
return zero.
I dropped this broken patch. Please send a proper test as a follow up.
> /* 3 rounds, 2 samples each */
> cnt = atomic_xchg(&sample_cnt, 0);
> CHECK(cnt != 6, "cnt", "exp %d samples, got %d\n", 6, cnt);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 10:39 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:20 AM Andrea Righi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Add tests for new API ring__consume_n() and ring_buffer__consume_n().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> > index 48c5695b7abf..33aba7684ab9 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> > @@ -304,10 +304,18 @@ static void ringbuf_subtest(void)
> > err = ring_buffer__consume(ringbuf);
> > CHECK(err < 0, "rb_consume", "failed: %d\b", err);
> >
> > + /* try to consume up to one item */
> > + err = ring_buffer__consume_n(ringbuf, 1);
> > + CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "rb_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
> > +
> > /* also consume using ring__consume to make sure it works the same */
> > err = ring__consume(ring);
> > ASSERT_GE(err, 0, "ring_consume");
> >
> > + /* try to consume up to one item */
> > + err = ring__consume_n(ring, 1);
> > + CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "ring_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
> > +
>
> Did you actually run this test? There is ring_buffer__consume() and
> ring__consume() calls right before your added calls, so consume_n will
> return zero.
>
> I dropped this broken patch. Please send a proper test as a follow up.
Sorry, technically, it's not broken, it just doesn't test much (CHECK
conditions confused me, I didn't realize you allow zero initially). We
will never consume anything and the result will be zero, which isn't
very meaningful.
"Interesting" test would set up things so that we have >1 item in
ringbuf and we consume exactly one at a time, because that's the new
logic you added.
I think it will be simpler to add a dedicated and simpler ringbuf test
for this, where you can specify how many items to submit, and then do
a bunch of consume/consume_n invocations, checking exact results.
Plus, please don't add new CHECK() uses, use ASSERT_XXX() ones instead.
I've applied first three patches because they look correct and it's
good to setup libbpf 1.5 dev cycle, but please do follow up with a
better test. Thanks.
>
> > /* 3 rounds, 2 samples each */
> > cnt = atomic_xchg(&sample_cnt, 0);
> > CHECK(cnt != 6, "cnt", "exp %d samples, got %d\n", 6, cnt);
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 10:52:10AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 10:39 AM Andrii Nakryiko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:20 AM Andrea Righi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add tests for new API ring__consume_n() and ring_buffer__consume_n().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> > > index 48c5695b7abf..33aba7684ab9 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c
> > > @@ -304,10 +304,18 @@ static void ringbuf_subtest(void)
> > > err = ring_buffer__consume(ringbuf);
> > > CHECK(err < 0, "rb_consume", "failed: %d\b", err);
> > >
> > > + /* try to consume up to one item */
> > > + err = ring_buffer__consume_n(ringbuf, 1);
> > > + CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "rb_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
> > > +
> > > /* also consume using ring__consume to make sure it works the same */
> > > err = ring__consume(ring);
> > > ASSERT_GE(err, 0, "ring_consume");
> > >
> > > + /* try to consume up to one item */
> > > + err = ring__consume_n(ring, 1);
> > > + CHECK(err < 0 || err > 1, "ring_consume_n", "failed: %d\b", err);
> > > +
> >
> > Did you actually run this test? There is ring_buffer__consume() and
> > ring__consume() calls right before your added calls, so consume_n will
> > return zero.
> >
> > I dropped this broken patch. Please send a proper test as a follow up.
>
> Sorry, technically, it's not broken, it just doesn't test much (CHECK
> conditions confused me, I didn't realize you allow zero initially). We
> will never consume anything and the result will be zero, which isn't
> very meaningful.
>
> "Interesting" test would set up things so that we have >1 item in
> ringbuf and we consume exactly one at a time, because that's the new
> logic you added.
>
> I think it will be simpler to add a dedicated and simpler ringbuf test
> for this, where you can specify how many items to submit, and then do
> a bunch of consume/consume_n invocations, checking exact results.
>
> Plus, please don't add new CHECK() uses, use ASSERT_XXX() ones instead.
>
> I've applied first three patches because they look correct and it's
> good to setup libbpf 1.5 dev cycle, but please do follow up with a
> better test. Thanks.
Yeah, sorry, I tried to add a minimal test to the existing one, but I
agree that it not very meaningful.
I already have a better dedicated test case for this
(https://github.com/arighi/ebpf-maps/blob/libbpf-consume-n/src/main.c#L118),
I just need to integrate it in the kselftest properly (and maybe
pre-generate more than N records in the ring buffer, so that we can
better test if the limit works as expected).
I'll send another patch to add a proper test case.
Thanks for applying the other patches!
-Andrea
>
> >
> > > /* 3 rounds, 2 samples each */
> > > cnt = atomic_xchg(&sample_cnt, 0);
> > > CHECK(cnt != 6, "cnt", "exp %d samples, got %d\n", 6, cnt);
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >