Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: add non-BPF_LSM test for task local storage | From | Yonghong Song <> | Date | Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:30:50 -0800 |
| |
On 1/8/21 3:19 PM, Song Liu wrote: > Task local storage is enabled for tracing programs. Add a test for it > without CONFIG_BPF_LSM. > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com> > --- > .../bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++ > .../selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..7de7a154ebbe6 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_task_local_storage.c > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
> + > +#include <sys/types.h> > +#include <unistd.h> > +#include <test_progs.h> > +#include "task_local_storage.skel.h" > + > +static unsigned int duration; > + > +void test_test_task_local_storage(void) > +{ > + struct task_local_storage *skel; > + const int count = 10; > + int i, err; > + > + skel = task_local_storage__open_and_load(); > +
Extra line is unnecessary here.
> + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel_open_and_load", "skeleton open and load failed\n")) > + return; > + > + err = task_local_storage__attach(skel); > +
ditto.
> + if (CHECK(err, "skel_attach", "skeleton attach failed\n")) > + goto out; > + > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) > + usleep(1000);
Does a smaller usleep value will work? If it is, recommend to have a smaller value here to reduce test_progs running time.
> + CHECK(skel->bss->value < count, "task_local_storage_value", > + "task local value too small\n"); > + > +out: > + task_local_storage__destroy(skel); > +} > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..807255c5c162d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/task_local_storage.c > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */
2020 -> 2021
> + > +#include "vmlinux.h" > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h> > +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h> > + > +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; > + > +struct local_data { > + __u64 val; > +}; > + > +struct { > + __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_TASK_STORAGE); > + __uint(map_flags, BPF_F_NO_PREALLOC); > + __type(key, int); > + __type(value, struct local_data); > +} task_storage_map SEC(".maps"); > + > +int value = 0; > + > +SEC("tp_btf/sched_switch") > +int BPF_PROG(on_switch, bool preempt, struct task_struct *prev, > + struct task_struct *next) > +{ > + struct local_data *storage;
If it possible that we do some filtering based on test_progs pid so below bpf_task_storage_get is only called for test_progs process? This is more targeted and can avoid counter contributions from other unrelated processes and make test_task_local_storage.c result comparison more meaningful.
> + > + storage = bpf_task_storage_get(&task_storage_map, > + next, 0, > + BPF_LOCAL_STORAGE_GET_F_CREATE); > + if (storage) { > + storage->val++; > + value = storage->val; > + } > + return 0; > +} >
| |