Re: [PATCH bpf-next v12 07/10] selftests/bpf: Add tests to verify global percpu data

On 14/8/26 00:26, [email protected] wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c
>> index 8466332d7406f..06d163a022dcc 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> @@ -60,3 +63,188 @@ void test_global_data_init(void)
>>  	free(newval);
>>  	bpf_object__close(obj);
>>  }
>> +
>> +static void test_percpu_data_on_cpus(struct bpf_map *map, int map_fd, int prog_fd, int *runp)
>> +{
>> +	struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu *data = NULL;
>> +	int i, err, key = 0, num_online, run = 0;
>> +	__u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL};
>> +	size_t data_sz;
>> +	bool *online;
>> +	LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts,
>> +		    .ctx_in = args,
>> +		    .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
>> +		    .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU,
>> +	);
> 
> This isn't a bug, but does the raw_tp ctx need to be passed here, given
> the program ignores it?

Good catch.

Will drop the 'args'.

> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +static void test_global_percpu_data_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu init_value = {};
>> +	struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu *init_data;
>> +	const __u32 desired_sz = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);
>> +	struct test_global_percpu_data *skel = NULL;
>> +	size_t init_data_sz;
>> +	struct bpf_map *map;
>> +	int prog_fd, err;
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> +	map = skel->maps.percpu;
>> +	if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map__type(map), BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, "bpf_map__type"))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	init_value.data = 2;
>> +	init_value.nums[6] = -1;
>> +	init_value.struct_data.i = 2;
>> +	init_value.struct_data.nums[6] = -1;
>> +	err = bpf_map__set_initial_value(map, &init_value, sizeof(init_value));
>> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__set_initial_value"))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	init_data = bpf_map__initial_value(map, &init_data_sz);
>> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(init_data, "bpf_map__initial_value"))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	ASSERT_EQ(init_data->data, init_value.data, "init_value data");
>> +	ASSERT_EQ(init_data->set, init_value.set, "init_value set");
>> +	ASSERT_EQ(init_data->struct_data.i, init_value.struct_data.i, "init_value struct_data.i");
>> +	ASSERT_EQ(init_data->struct_data.nums[6], init_value.struct_data.nums[6],
>> +		  "init_value struct_data.nums[6]");
> 
> This isn't a bug, but should init_value.set be given a non-zero value,
> and nums[6] checked, so these assertions can actually distinguish a broken
> copy?

Will update 'init_value.set = 1;' and check 'nums[6]'.

Thanks,
Leon