On 2/8/21 10:35 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:53 PM Yonghong Song [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

A test is added for arraymap and percpu arraymap. The test also
exercises the early return for the helper which does not
traverse all elements.
     $ ./test_progs -n 44
     #44/1 hash_map:OK
     #44/2 array_map:OK
     #44 for_each:OK
     Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <redacted>
---
  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/for_each.c       | 54 ++++++++++++++
  .../bpf/progs/for_each_array_map_elem.c       | 71 +++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 125 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/for_each_array_map_elem.c

[...]

quoted

+
+       arraymap_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.arraymap);
+       expected_total = 0;
+       max_entries = bpf_map__max_entries(skel->maps.arraymap);
+       for (i = 0; i < max_entries; i++) {
+               key = i;
+               val = i + 1;
+               /* skip the last iteration for expected total */
+               if (i != max_entries - 1)
+                       expected_total += val;
+               err = bpf_map_update_elem(arraymap_fd, &key, &val, BPF_ANY);
+               if (CHECK(err, "map_update", "map_update failed\n"))
+                       goto out;
+       }
+
+       num_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus();
+        percpu_map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.percpu_map);

formatting is off, please check with checkfile.pl

Sure. will do.

quoted

+        percpu_valbuf = malloc(sizeof(__u64) * num_cpus);
+        if (CHECK_FAIL(!percpu_valbuf))

please don't use CHECK_FAIL, ASSERT_PTR_OK would work nicely here

Okay.

quoted

+                goto out;
+
+       key = 0;
+        for (i = 0; i < num_cpus; i++)
+                percpu_valbuf[i] = i + 1;
+       err = bpf_map_update_elem(percpu_map_fd, &key, percpu_valbuf, BPF_ANY);
+       if (CHECK(err, "percpu_map_update", "map_update failed\n"))
+               goto out;
+
+       do_dummy_read(skel->progs.dump_task);

see previous patch, iter/tasks seems like an overkill for these tests

Yes, will use bpf_prog_test_run() in v2.

quoted

+
+       ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->called, 1, "called");
+       ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->arraymap_output, expected_total, "array_output");
+       ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->cpu + 1, skel->bss->percpu_val, "percpu_val");
+
+out:
+       free(percpu_valbuf);
+       for_each_array_map_elem__destroy(skel);
+}
+

[...]

quoted

+SEC("iter/task")
+int dump_task(struct bpf_iter__task *ctx)
+{
+       struct seq_file *seq =  ctx->meta->seq;
+       struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
+       struct callback_ctx data;
+
+       /* only call once */
+       if (called > 0)
+               return 0;
+
+       called++;
+
+       data.output = 0;
+       bpf_for_each_map_elem(&arraymap, check_array_elem, &data, 0);
+       arraymap_output = data.output;
+
+       bpf_for_each_map_elem(&percpu_map, check_percpu_elem, 0, 0);

nit: NULL, 0 ?

We do not NULL defined in vmlinux.h or bpf_helpers.h. Hence I am using
0, I should at least use (void *)0 here, I think.

quoted

+
+       return 0;
+}
--
2.24.1