Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-158515-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:23:30 +0200
To: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
	Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@fb.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Add ring_buffer__consume_n test.
Message-ID: <ZipLQmwPd--EajCk@krava>
References: <20240420155904.1450768-1-andrea.righi@canonical.com>
 <ZiVy9bYrX-w24huD@krava>
 <Zin12J-emVljvVrJ@gpd>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zin12J-emVljvVrJ@gpd>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:19:04AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:11:33PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> ...
> > >  static struct test_ringbuf_map_key_lskel *skel_map_key;
> > > +static struct test_ringbuf_n_lskel *skel_n;
> > 
> > seems like there's no need for this to be static variable
> 
> Can you elaborate more? I think we want these pointers to be static to
> limit the scope to this file, no?

I meant to move it directly inside ringbuf_n_subtest function,
I don't see reason why it's defined outside of that function

jirka

> 
> > 
> > >  static struct test_ringbuf_lskel *skel;
> > >  static struct ring_buffer *ringbuf;
> > >  
> > > @@ -326,6 +328,67 @@ static void ringbuf_subtest(void)
> > >  	test_ringbuf_lskel__destroy(skel);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +/*
> > > + * Test ring_buffer__consume_n() by producing N_TOT_SAMPLES samples in the ring
> > > + * buffer, via getpid(), and consuming them in chunks of N_SAMPLES.
> > > + */
> > > +#define N_TOT_SAMPLES	32
> > > +#define N_SAMPLES	4
> > > +
> > > +/* Sample value to verify the callback validity */
> > > +#define SAMPLE_VALUE	42L
> > > +
> > > +static int process_n_sample(void *ctx, void *data, size_t len)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct sample *s = data;
> > > +
> > > +	CHECK(s->value != SAMPLE_VALUE,
> > > +	      "sample_value", "exp %ld, got %ld\n", SAMPLE_VALUE, s->value);
> > 
> > I think we should use ASSERT macros instead in the new code
> 
> Good catch, I'll change this to an ASSERT_EQ().
> 
> > 
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void ringbuf_n_subtest(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	int err, i;
> > > +
> > > +	skel_n = test_ringbuf_n_lskel__open();
> > > +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel_n, "test_ringbuf_n_lskel__open"))
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	skel_n->maps.ringbuf.max_entries = getpagesize();
> > > +	skel_n->bss->pid = getpid();
> > > +
> > > +	err = test_ringbuf_n_lskel__load(skel_n);
> > > +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "test_ringbuf_n_lskel__load"))
> > > +		goto cleanup;
> > > +
> > > +	ringbuf = ring_buffer__new(skel_n->maps.ringbuf.map_fd,
> > > +				   process_n_sample, NULL, NULL);
> > > +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(ringbuf, "ring_buffer__new"))
> > > +		goto cleanup;
> > > +
> > > +	err = test_ringbuf_n_lskel__attach(skel_n);
> > > +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "test_ringbuf_n_lskel__attach"))
> > > +		goto cleanup_ringbuf;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Produce N_TOT_SAMPLES samples in the ring buffer by calling getpid() */
> > > +	skel->bss->value = SAMPLE_VALUE;
> > 
> > skel_n ?
> 
> Absolutely... I'm suprised that it works actually, I guess pure luck
> (unluck) to reuse the old pointer and have value mapped to the same
> location. Anyway, I'll fix this.
> 
> > 
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < N_TOT_SAMPLES; i++)
> > > +		syscall(__NR_getpgid);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Consume all samples from the ring buffer in batches of N_SAMPLES */
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < N_TOT_SAMPLES; i += err) {
> > > +		err = ring_buffer__consume_n(ringbuf, N_SAMPLES);
> > > +		ASSERT_EQ(err, N_SAMPLES, "rb_consume");
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > 
> > SNIP
> > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf_n.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf_n.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..b98b5bb20699
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf_n.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +// Copyright (c) 2024 Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
> > > +
> > > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > > +#include <sched.h>
> > > +#include <unistd.h>
> > > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > > +#include "bpf_misc.h"
> > > +
> > > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
> > > +
> > > +#define TASK_COMM_LEN 16
> > > +
> > > +struct sample {
> > > +	int pid;
> > > +	int seq;
> > 
> > seq does not seem to be checked, is it needed?
> 
> seq is not used at all, I can definitely drop it.
> 
> Thanks for the review! I'll send a v2.
> 
> -Andrea