On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:04 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This patch adds test coverage for the new BPF_F_CPU flag support in
> percpu_array maps. The following APIs are exercised:
>
> * bpf_map_update_batch()
> * bpf_map_lookup_batch()
> * bpf_map_update_elem_opts()
> * bpf_map__update_elem_opts()
> * bpf_map_lookup_elem_opts()
> * bpf_map__lookup_elem_opts()
>
> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
> ./test_progs -t percpu_alloc/cpu_flag_tests
> 253/13 percpu_alloc/cpu_flag_tests:OK
> 253 percpu_alloc:OK
> Summary: 1/13 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c | 170 ++++++++++++++++++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_array_flag.c | 24 +++
> 2 files changed, 194 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/percpu_array_flag.c
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
> index 343da65864d6..6f0d0e6dc76a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/percpu_alloc.c
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> #include "percpu_alloc_array.skel.h"
> #include "percpu_alloc_cgrp_local_storage.skel.h"
> #include "percpu_alloc_fail.skel.h"
> +#include "percpu_array_flag.skel.h"
>
> static void test_array(void)
> {
> @@ -115,6 +116,173 @@ static void test_failure(void) {
> RUN_TESTS(percpu_alloc_fail);
> }
>
> +static void test_cpu_flag(void)
> +{
> + int map_fd, *keys = NULL, value_size, cpu, i, j, nr_cpus, err;
> + size_t key_sz = sizeof(int), value_sz = sizeof(u64);
> + struct percpu_array_flag *skel;
> + u64 batch = 0, *values = NULL;
> + const u64 value = 0xDEADC0DE;
> + u32 count, max_entries;
> + struct bpf_map *map;
> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_lookup_elem_opts, lookup_opts,
> + .flags = BPF_F_CPU,
> + .cpu = 0,
> + );
> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_update_elem_opts, update_opts,
> + .flags = BPF_F_CPU,
> + .cpu = 0,
> + );
> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_map_batch_opts, batch_opts,
> + .elem_flags = BPF_F_CPU,
> + .flags = 0,
> + );
> +
> + nr_cpus = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> + if (!ASSERT_GT(nr_cpus, 0, "libbpf_num_possible_cpus"))
> + return;
> +
> + skel = percpu_array_flag__open_and_load();
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "percpu_array_flag__open_and_load"))
> + return;
> +
> + map = skel->maps.percpu;
> + map_fd = bpf_map__fd(map);
> + max_entries = bpf_map__max_entries(map);
> +
> + value_size = value_sz * nr_cpus;
> + values = calloc(max_entries, value_size);
> + keys = calloc(max_entries, key_sz);
> + if (!ASSERT_FALSE(!keys || !values, "calloc keys and values"))
ASSERT_xxx are meant to be meaningful in the case that some condition
fails, so using generic ASSERT_FALSE with some complicated condition
is defeating that purpose. Use two separate ASSERT_OK_PTR checks
instead.
[...]
