| Message ID | 20210406185400.377293-3-pctammela@mojatatu.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | add batched ops support for percpu | expand |
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote: > > This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests. > > Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless > user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the > output of the batched operations. I wonder if a user has to be more careful, though? This BPF_PERCPU_TYPE, __bpf_percpu_align and bpf_percpu macros seem to create just another opaque layer. It actually seems detrimental to me. I'd rather emphasize in the documentation (e.g., in bpf_map_lookup_elem) that all per-cpu maps are aligning values at 8 bytes, so user has to make sure that array of values provided to bpf_map_lookup_elem() has each element size rounded up to 8. In practice, I'd recommend users to always use __u64/__s64 when having primitive integers in a map (they are not saving anything by using int, it just creates an illusion of savings). Well, maybe on 32-bit arches they would save a bit of CPU, but not on typical 64-bit architectures. As for using structs as values, always mark them as __attribute__((aligned(8))). Basically, instead of obscuring the real use some more, let's clarify and maybe even provide some examples in documentation? > > Now that both array and hash maps have support for batched ops in the > percpu variant, let's provide a convenient macro to declare percpu map > value types. > > Updates the tests to a "reference" usage of the new macro. > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com> > --- > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 10 ++++ > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 7 --- > .../bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c | 48 ++++++++++--------- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c | 5 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 16 ++++--- > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > [...] > @@ -400,11 +402,11 @@ static void test_arraymap(unsigned int task, void *data) > static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > { > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > int key, next_key, fd, i; > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), 2, 0); > + sizeof(long), 2, 0); > if (fd < 0) { > printf("Failed to create arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); > exit(1); > @@ -459,7 +461,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > { > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); This just sets a bad example for anyone using selftests as an aspiration for their own code. bpf_num_possible_cpus() does exit(1) internally if libbpf_num_possible_cpus() returns error. No one should write real production code like that. So maybe let's provide a better example instead with error handling and malloc (or perhaps alloca)? > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > /* nr_keys is not too large otherwise the test stresses percpu > * allocator more than anything else > */ > @@ -467,7 +469,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > int key, fd, i; > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), nr_keys, 0); > + sizeof(long), nr_keys, 0); > if (fd < 0) { > printf("Failed to create per-cpu arraymap '%s'!\n", > strerror(errno)); > -- > 2.25.1 >
Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 15:31, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> escreveu: > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests. > > > > Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless > > user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the > > output of the batched operations. > > I wonder if a user has to be more careful, though? This > BPF_PERCPU_TYPE, __bpf_percpu_align and bpf_percpu macros seem to > create just another opaque layer. It actually seems detrimental to me. > > I'd rather emphasize in the documentation (e.g., in > bpf_map_lookup_elem) that all per-cpu maps are aligning values at 8 > bytes, so user has to make sure that array of values provided to > bpf_map_lookup_elem() has each element size rounded up to 8. From my own experience, the documentation has been a very unreliable source, to the point that I usually jump to the code first rather than to the documentation nowadays[1]. Tests, samples and projects have always been my source of truth and we are already lacking a bit on those as well. For instance, the samples directory contains programs that are very outdated (I didn't check if they are still functional). I think macros like these will be present in most of the project dealing with batched operations and as a daily user of libbpf I don't see how this could not be offered by libbpf as a standardized way to declare percpu types. [1] So batched operations were introduced a little bit over a 1 year ago and yet the only reference I had for it was the selftests. The documentation is on my TODO list, but that's just because I have to deal with it daily. > > In practice, I'd recommend users to always use __u64/__s64 when having > primitive integers in a map (they are not saving anything by using > int, it just creates an illusion of savings). Well, maybe on 32-bit > arches they would save a bit of CPU, but not on typical 64-bit > architectures. As for using structs as values, always mark them as > __attribute__((aligned(8))). > > Basically, instead of obscuring the real use some more, let's clarify > and maybe even provide some examples in documentation? Why not do both? Provide a standardized way to declare a percpu value with examples and a good documentation with examples. Let the user decide what is best for his use case. > > > > > Now that both array and hash maps have support for batched ops in the > > percpu variant, let's provide a convenient macro to declare percpu map > > value types. > > > > Updates the tests to a "reference" usage of the new macro. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com> > > --- > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 10 ++++ > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 7 --- > > .../bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c | 48 ++++++++++--------- > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c | 5 +- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 16 ++++--- > > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > [...] > > > @@ -400,11 +402,11 @@ static void test_arraymap(unsigned int task, void *data) > > static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > > { > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > > int key, next_key, fd, i; > > > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), 2, 0); > > + sizeof(long), 2, 0); > > if (fd < 0) { > > printf("Failed to create arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); > > exit(1); > > @@ -459,7 +461,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > > static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > > { > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > > This just sets a bad example for anyone using selftests as an > aspiration for their own code. bpf_num_possible_cpus() does exit(1) > internally if libbpf_num_possible_cpus() returns error. No one should > write real production code like that. So maybe let's provide a better > example instead with error handling and malloc (or perhaps alloca)? OK. Makes sense. > > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > > /* nr_keys is not too large otherwise the test stresses percpu > > * allocator more than anything else > > */ > > @@ -467,7 +469,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > > int key, fd, i; > > > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), nr_keys, 0); > > + sizeof(long), nr_keys, 0); > > if (fd < 0) { > > printf("Failed to create per-cpu arraymap '%s'!\n", > > strerror(errno)); > > -- > > 2.25.1 > >
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:30 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote: > > Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 15:31, Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests. > > > > > > Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless > > > user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the > > > output of the batched operations. > > > > I wonder if a user has to be more careful, though? This > > BPF_PERCPU_TYPE, __bpf_percpu_align and bpf_percpu macros seem to > > create just another opaque layer. It actually seems detrimental to me. > > > > I'd rather emphasize in the documentation (e.g., in > > bpf_map_lookup_elem) that all per-cpu maps are aligning values at 8 > > bytes, so user has to make sure that array of values provided to > > bpf_map_lookup_elem() has each element size rounded up to 8. > > From my own experience, the documentation has been a very unreliable > source, to the point that I usually jump to the code first rather than > to the documentation nowadays[1]. I totally agree, which is why I think improving docs is necessary. Unfortunately docs are usually lagging behind, because generally people hate writing documentation and it's just a fact of life. > Tests, samples and projects have always been my source of truth and we > are already lacking a bit on those as well. For instance, the samples > directory contains programs that are very outdated (I didn't check if > they are still functional). Yeah, samples/bpf is bitrotting. selftests/bpf, though, are maintained and run regularly and vigorously, so making sure they set a good and realistic example is a good. > I think macros like these will be present in most of the project > dealing with batched operations and as a daily user of libbpf I don't > see how this could not be offered by libbpf as a standardized way to > declare percpu types. If I were using per-CPU maps a lot, I'd make sure I use u64 and aligned(8) types and bypass all the macro ugliness, because there is no need in it and it just hurts readability. So I don't want libbpf to incentivize bad choices here by providing seemingly convenient macros. Users have to be aware that values are 8-byte aligned/extended. That's not a big secret and not a very obscure thing to learn anyways. > > [1] So batched operations were introduced a little bit over a 1 year > ago and yet the only reference I had for it was the selftests. The > documentation is on my TODO list, but that's just because I have to > deal with it daily. > Yeah, please do contribute them! > > > > In practice, I'd recommend users to always use __u64/__s64 when having > > primitive integers in a map (they are not saving anything by using > > int, it just creates an illusion of savings). Well, maybe on 32-bit > > arches they would save a bit of CPU, but not on typical 64-bit > > architectures. As for using structs as values, always mark them as > > __attribute__((aligned(8))). > > > > Basically, instead of obscuring the real use some more, let's clarify > > and maybe even provide some examples in documentation? > > Why not do both? > > Provide a standardized way to declare a percpu value with examples and > a good documentation with examples. > Let the user decide what is best for his use case. What is a standardized way? A custom macro with struct { T v; } inside? That's just one way of doing this, and it requires another macro to just access the value (because no one wants to write my_values[cpu].v, right?). I'd say the standardized way of reading values should look like `my_values[cpu]`, that's it. For that you use 64-bit integers or 8-byte aligned structs. And don't mess with macros for that at all. So if a user insists on using int/short/char as value, they can do their own struct { char v} __aligned(8) trick. But I'd advise such users to reconsider and use u64. If they are using structs for values, always mark __aligned(8) and forget about this in the rest of your code. As for allocating memory for array of per-cpu values, there is also no single standardized way we can come up with. It could be malloc() on the heap. Or alloca() on the stack. Or it could be pre-allocated one for up to maximum supported CPUs. Or... whatever makes sense. So I think the best way to handle all that is to clearly explain how reading per-CPU values from per-CPU maps works in BPF and what are the memory layout expectations. > > > > > > > > > Now that both array and hash maps have support for batched ops in the > > > percpu variant, let's provide a convenient macro to declare percpu map > > > value types. > > > > > > Updates the tests to a "reference" usage of the new macro. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com> > > > --- > > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 10 ++++ > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 7 --- > > > .../bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c | 48 ++++++++++--------- > > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c | 5 +- > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 16 ++++--- > > > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > @@ -400,11 +402,11 @@ static void test_arraymap(unsigned int task, void *data) > > > static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > > > { > > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > > > int key, next_key, fd, i; > > > > > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), 2, 0); > > > + sizeof(long), 2, 0); > > > if (fd < 0) { > > > printf("Failed to create arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); > > > exit(1); > > > @@ -459,7 +461,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > > > static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > > > { > > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > > > > This just sets a bad example for anyone using selftests as an > > aspiration for their own code. bpf_num_possible_cpus() does exit(1) > > internally if libbpf_num_possible_cpus() returns error. No one should > > write real production code like that. So maybe let's provide a better > > example instead with error handling and malloc (or perhaps alloca)? > > OK. Makes sense. > > > > > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > > > /* nr_keys is not too large otherwise the test stresses percpu > > > * allocator more than anything else > > > */ > > > @@ -467,7 +469,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > > > int key, fd, i; > > > > > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), nr_keys, 0); > > > + sizeof(long), nr_keys, 0); > > > if (fd < 0) { > > > printf("Failed to create per-cpu arraymap '%s'!\n", > > > strerror(errno)); > > > -- > > > 2.25.1 > > >
Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 16:51, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> escreveu: > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:30 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Em qua., 7 de abr. de 2021 às 15:31, Andrii Nakryiko > > <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests. > > > > > > > > Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless > > > > user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the > > > > output of the batched operations. > > > > > > I wonder if a user has to be more careful, though? This > > > BPF_PERCPU_TYPE, __bpf_percpu_align and bpf_percpu macros seem to > > > create just another opaque layer. It actually seems detrimental to me. > > > > > > I'd rather emphasize in the documentation (e.g., in > > > bpf_map_lookup_elem) that all per-cpu maps are aligning values at 8 > > > bytes, so user has to make sure that array of values provided to > > > bpf_map_lookup_elem() has each element size rounded up to 8. > > > > From my own experience, the documentation has been a very unreliable > > source, to the point that I usually jump to the code first rather than > > to the documentation nowadays[1]. > > I totally agree, which is why I think improving docs is necessary. > Unfortunately docs are usually lagging behind, because generally > people hate writing documentation and it's just a fact of life. > > > Tests, samples and projects have always been my source of truth and we > > are already lacking a bit on those as well. For instance, the samples > > directory contains programs that are very outdated (I didn't check if > > they are still functional). > > Yeah, samples/bpf is bitrotting. selftests/bpf, though, are maintained > and run regularly and vigorously, so making sure they set a good and > realistic example is a good. > > > > I think macros like these will be present in most of the project > > dealing with batched operations and as a daily user of libbpf I don't > > see how this could not be offered by libbpf as a standardized way to > > declare percpu types. > > If I were using per-CPU maps a lot, I'd make sure I use u64 and > aligned(8) types and bypass all the macro ugliness, because there is > no need in it and it just hurts readability. So I don't want libbpf to > incentivize bad choices here by providing seemingly convenient macros. > Users have to be aware that values are 8-byte aligned/extended. That's > not a big secret and not a very obscure thing to learn anyways. > > > > > [1] So batched operations were introduced a little bit over a 1 year > > ago and yet the only reference I had for it was the selftests. The > > documentation is on my TODO list, but that's just because I have to > > deal with it daily. > > > > Yeah, please do contribute them! > > > > > > > In practice, I'd recommend users to always use __u64/__s64 when having > > > primitive integers in a map (they are not saving anything by using > > > int, it just creates an illusion of savings). Well, maybe on 32-bit > > > arches they would save a bit of CPU, but not on typical 64-bit > > > architectures. As for using structs as values, always mark them as > > > __attribute__((aligned(8))). > > > > > > Basically, instead of obscuring the real use some more, let's clarify > > > and maybe even provide some examples in documentation? > > > > Why not do both? > > > > Provide a standardized way to declare a percpu value with examples and > > a good documentation with examples. > > Let the user decide what is best for his use case. > > What is a standardized way? A custom macro with struct { T v; } > inside? That's just one way of doing this, and it requires another > macro to just access the value (because no one wants to write > my_values[cpu].v, right?). I'd say the standardized way of reading > values should look like `my_values[cpu]`, that's it. For that you use > 64-bit integers or 8-byte aligned structs. And don't mess with macros > for that at all. > > So if a user insists on using int/short/char as value, they can do > their own struct { char v} __aligned(8) trick. But I'd advise such > users to reconsider and use u64. If they are using structs for values, > always mark __aligned(8) and forget about this in the rest of your > code. > > As for allocating memory for array of per-cpu values, there is also no > single standardized way we can come up with. It could be malloc() on > the heap. Or alloca() on the stack. Or it could be pre-allocated one > for up to maximum supported CPUs. Or... whatever makes sense. > > So I think the best way to handle all that is to clearly explain how > reading per-CPU values from per-CPU maps works in BPF and what are the > memory layout expectations. I understand your points much better now. Thanks. I will do what you suggested on v2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that both array and hash maps have support for batched ops in the > > > > percpu variant, let's provide a convenient macro to declare percpu map > > > > value types. > > > > > > > > Updates the tests to a "reference" usage of the new macro. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com> > > > > --- > > > > tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 10 ++++ > > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 7 --- > > > > .../bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c | 48 ++++++++++--------- > > > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c | 5 +- > > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 16 ++++--- > > > > 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > @@ -400,11 +402,11 @@ static void test_arraymap(unsigned int task, void *data) > > > > static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > > > > { > > > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > > > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > > > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > > > > int key, next_key, fd, i; > > > > > > > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > > > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), 2, 0); > > > > + sizeof(long), 2, 0); > > > > if (fd < 0) { > > > > printf("Failed to create arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); > > > > exit(1); > > > > @@ -459,7 +461,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) > > > > static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > > > > { > > > > unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); > > > > > > This just sets a bad example for anyone using selftests as an > > > aspiration for their own code. bpf_num_possible_cpus() does exit(1) > > > internally if libbpf_num_possible_cpus() returns error. No one should > > > write real production code like that. So maybe let's provide a better > > > example instead with error handling and malloc (or perhaps alloca)? > > > > OK. Makes sense. > > > > > > > > > - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); > > > > + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; > > > > /* nr_keys is not too large otherwise the test stresses percpu > > > > * allocator more than anything else > > > > */ > > > > @@ -467,7 +469,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) > > > > int key, fd, i; > > > > > > > > fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), > > > > - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), nr_keys, 0); > > > > + sizeof(long), nr_keys, 0); > > > > if (fd < 0) { > > > > printf("Failed to create per-cpu arraymap '%s'!\n", > > > > strerror(errno)); > > > > -- > > > > 2.25.1 > > > >
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h index 875dde20d56e..5feace6960e3 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h @@ -128,6 +128,16 @@ LIBBPF_API int bpf_map_delete_elem(int fd, const void *key); LIBBPF_API int bpf_map_get_next_key(int fd, const void *key, void *next_key); LIBBPF_API int bpf_map_freeze(int fd); +#define __bpf_percpu_align __attribute__((__aligned__(8))) + +#define BPF_PERCPU_TYPE(type) \ + struct { \ + type v; \ + /* padding */ \ + } __bpf_percpu_align + +#define bpf_percpu(name, cpu) ((name)[(cpu)].v) + struct bpf_map_batch_opts { size_t sz; /* size of this struct for forward/backward compatibility */ __u64 elem_flags; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h index a3352a64c067..105db3120ab4 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h @@ -20,13 +20,6 @@ static inline unsigned int bpf_num_possible_cpus(void) return possible_cpus; } -#define __bpf_percpu_val_align __attribute__((__aligned__(8))) - -#define BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(type, name) \ - struct { type v; /* padding */ } __bpf_percpu_val_align \ - name[bpf_num_possible_cpus()] -#define bpf_percpu(name, cpu) name[(cpu)].v - #ifndef ARRAY_SIZE # define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0])) #endif diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c index 976bf415fbdd..3909e3980094 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c @@ -10,27 +10,31 @@ #include <bpf_util.h> #include <test_maps.h> +typedef BPF_PERCPU_TYPE(int) pcpu_map_value_t; + static void map_batch_update(int map_fd, __u32 max_entries, int *keys, void *values, bool is_pcpu) { - typedef BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(int, value); - value *v = NULL; + unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); + pcpu_map_value_t *v; int i, j, err; + int offset = 0; DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_batch_opts, opts, .elem_flags = 0, .flags = 0, ); if (is_pcpu) - v = (value *)values; + v = values; for (i = 0; i < max_entries; i++) { keys[i] = i + 1; if (is_pcpu) - for (j = 0; j < bpf_num_possible_cpus(); j++) - bpf_percpu(v[i], j) = i + 2 + j; + for (j = 0; j < nr_cpus; j++) + bpf_percpu(v + offset, j) = i + 2 + j; else ((int *)values)[i] = i + 2; + offset += nr_cpus; } err = bpf_map_update_batch(map_fd, keys, values, &max_entries, &opts); @@ -40,22 +44,23 @@ static void map_batch_update(int map_fd, __u32 max_entries, int *keys, static void map_batch_verify(int *visited, __u32 max_entries, int *keys, void *values, bool is_pcpu) { - typedef BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(int, value); - value *v = NULL; + unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); + pcpu_map_value_t *v; int i, j; + int offset = 0; if (is_pcpu) - v = (value *)values; + v = values; memset(visited, 0, max_entries * sizeof(*visited)); for (i = 0; i < max_entries; i++) { - if (is_pcpu) { - for (j = 0; j < bpf_num_possible_cpus(); j++) { - CHECK(keys[i] + 1 + j != bpf_percpu(v[i], j), + for (j = 0; j < nr_cpus; j++) { + int value = bpf_percpu(v + offset, j); + CHECK(keys[i] + 1 + j != value, "key/value checking", - "error: i %d j %d key %d value %d\n", - i, j, keys[i], bpf_percpu(v[i], j)); + "error: i %d j %d key %d value %d\n", i, + j, keys[i], value); } } else { CHECK(keys[i] + 1 != ((int *)values)[i], @@ -63,9 +68,8 @@ static void map_batch_verify(int *visited, __u32 max_entries, "error: i %d key %d value %d\n", i, keys[i], ((int *)values)[i]); } - + offset += nr_cpus; visited[i] = 1; - } for (i = 0; i < max_entries; i++) { CHECK(visited[i] != 1, "visited checking", @@ -75,11 +79,10 @@ static void map_batch_verify(int *visited, __u32 max_entries, void __test_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(bool is_pcpu) { + unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); __u32 batch, count, total, total_success; - typedef BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(int, value); int map_fd, *keys, *visited, key; const __u32 max_entries = 10; - value pcpu_values[max_entries]; int err, step, value_size; bool nospace_err; void *values; @@ -100,12 +103,13 @@ void __test_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(bool is_pcpu) CHECK(map_fd == -1, "bpf_create_map_xattr()", "error:%s\n", strerror(errno)); - value_size = is_pcpu ? sizeof(value) : sizeof(int); - keys = malloc(max_entries * sizeof(int)); if (is_pcpu) - values = pcpu_values; + value_size = sizeof(pcpu_map_value_t) * nr_cpus; else - values = malloc(max_entries * sizeof(int)); + value_size = sizeof(int); + + keys = malloc(max_entries * sizeof(int)); + values = calloc(max_entries, value_size); visited = malloc(max_entries * sizeof(int)); CHECK(!keys || !values || !visited, "malloc()", "error:%s\n", strerror(errno)); @@ -203,7 +207,7 @@ void __test_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(bool is_pcpu) CHECK(total != max_entries, "delete with steps", "total = %u, max_entries = %u\n", total, max_entries); - /* check map is empty, errono == ENOENT */ + /* check map is empty, errno == ENOENT */ err = bpf_map_get_next_key(map_fd, NULL, &key); CHECK(!err || errno != ENOENT, "bpf_map_get_next_key()", "error: %s\n", strerror(errno)); diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c index 14a31109dd0e..ec3d010319cc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c @@ -12,10 +12,7 @@ static int duration; typedef unsigned long long map_key_t; typedef unsigned long long map_value_t; -typedef struct { - map_value_t v; /* padding */ -} __bpf_percpu_val_align pcpu_map_value_t; - +typedef BPF_PERCPU_TYPE(map_value_t) pcpu_map_value_t; static int map_populate(int map_fd, int num) { diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c index 51adc42b2b40..6acbebef5f90 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ #define ENOTSUPP 524 #endif +typedef BPF_PERCPU_TYPE(long) pcpu_map_value_t; + static int skips; static int map_flags; @@ -147,13 +149,13 @@ static void test_hashmap_sizes(unsigned int task, void *data) static void test_hashmap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) { unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, value); + pcpu_map_value_t value[nr_cpus]; long long key, next_key, first_key; int expected_key_mask = 0; int fd, i; - fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH, sizeof(key), - sizeof(bpf_percpu(value, 0)), 2, map_flags); + fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_HASH, sizeof(key), sizeof(long), + 2, map_flags); if (fd < 0) { printf("Failed to create hashmap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); exit(1); @@ -400,11 +402,11 @@ static void test_arraymap(unsigned int task, void *data) static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) { unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; int key, next_key, fd, i; fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), 2, 0); + sizeof(long), 2, 0); if (fd < 0) { printf("Failed to create arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno)); exit(1); @@ -459,7 +461,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu(unsigned int task, void *data) static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) { unsigned int nr_cpus = bpf_num_possible_cpus(); - BPF_DECLARE_PERCPU(long, values); + pcpu_map_value_t values[nr_cpus]; /* nr_keys is not too large otherwise the test stresses percpu * allocator more than anything else */ @@ -467,7 +469,7 @@ static void test_arraymap_percpu_many_keys(void) int key, fd, i; fd = bpf_create_map(BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY, sizeof(key), - sizeof(bpf_percpu(values, 0)), nr_keys, 0); + sizeof(long), nr_keys, 0); if (fd < 0) { printf("Failed to create per-cpu arraymap '%s'!\n", strerror(errno));
This macro was refactored out of the bpf selftests. Since percpu values are rounded up to '8' in the kernel, a careless user in userspace might encounter unexpected values when parsing the output of the batched operations. Now that both array and hash maps have support for batched ops in the percpu variant, let's provide a convenient macro to declare percpu map value types. Updates the tests to a "reference" usage of the new macro. Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com> --- tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 10 ++++ tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_util.h | 7 --- .../bpf/map_tests/htab_map_batch_ops.c | 48 ++++++++++--------- .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/map_init.c | 5 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 16 ++++--- 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)