| Message ID | 20240507-upstream-bpf-next-20240506-mptcp-subflow-test-v1-2-e2bcbdf49857@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests/bpf: new MPTCP subflow subtest & improvements | expand |
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes > test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to > simpolify the code. > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void) > close(cgroup_fd); > } > > +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \ > +do { \ > + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \ > + test_##suffix(); \ > +} while (0) Please no. Don't hide it behind macros. > void test_mptcp(void) > { > - if (test__start_subtest("base")) > - test_base(); > - if (test__start_subtest("mptcpify")) > - test_mptcpify(); > + RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base); > + RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify); > } > > -- > 2.43.0 >
Hi Alexei, Thank you for the review! On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) > <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> >> >> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes >> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to >> simpolify the code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> >> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c >> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c >> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void) >> close(cgroup_fd); >> } >> >> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \ >> +do { \ >> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \ >> + test_##suffix(); \ >> +} while (0) > > Please no. > Don't hide it behind macros. I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines. Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro -- MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2] (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this modification too? [1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595 [2] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576 [3] https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba Cheers, Matt
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi Alexei, > > Thank you for the review! > > On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) > > <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > >> > >> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes > >> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to > >> simpolify the code. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > >> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org> > >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > >> --- > >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++---- > >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > >> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > >> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void) > >> close(cgroup_fd); > >> } > >> > >> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \ > >> +do { \ > >> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \ > >> + test_##suffix(); \ > >> +} while (0) > > > > Please no. > > Don't hide it behind macros. > > I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro > too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our > tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines. > > Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro -- > MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2] > (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the > minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code > with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this > modification too? Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros. Refactor into helper function in normal C. But, what do you mean "in your tree" ? That's your development tree and you plan to send all that properly as patches to bpf-next someday? > > [1] > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595 > > [2] > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576 > > [3] > https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba > > Cheers, > Matt > -- > Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund. >
Hi Alexei, Thank you for your reply! On 07/05/2024 22:51, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexei, >> >> Thank you for the review! >> >> On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) >>> <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> >>>> >>>> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes >>>> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to >>>> simpolify the code. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> >>>> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> >>>> --- >>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c >>>> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c >>>> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void) >>>> close(cgroup_fd); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \ >>>> +do { \ >>>> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \ >>>> + test_##suffix(); \ >>>> +} while (0) >>> >>> Please no. >>> Don't hide it behind macros. >> >> I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro >> too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our >> tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines. >> >> Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro -- >> MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2] >> (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the >> minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code >> with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this >> modification too? > > Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros. > Refactor into helper function in normal C. Sure, we will revert that. > But, what do you mean "in your tree" ? > That's your development tree and you plan to send all that > properly as patches to bpf-next someday? Yes, correct, we have some WIP patches in MPTCP development tree where we added a new bpf_struct_ops structure to implement new MPTCP packet schedulers in BPF. This work was paused for a while because we had to refine the packet scheduler API, but this task is now ongoing. Hopefully we will be able to send patches to bpf-next this "soon". Cheers, Matt
On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 13:51 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Alexei, > > > > Thank you for the review! > > > > On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) > > > <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > > > > > > > Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then > > > > invokes > > > > test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST > > > > to > > > > simpolify the code. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > > > > Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org> > > > > --- > > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++-- > > > > -- > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > > > > index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c > > > > @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void) > > > > close(cgroup_fd); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) > > > > \ > > > > +do { > > > > \ > > > > + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) > > > > \ > > > > + test_##suffix(); > > > > \ > > > > +} while (0) > > > > > > Please no. > > > Don't hide it behind macros. > > > > I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a > > macro > > too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests > > in our > > tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines. > > > > Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another > > macro -- > > MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree > > [2] > > (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to > > the > > minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar > > code > > with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this > > modification too? > > Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros. > Refactor into helper function in normal C. I do agree to remove this RUN_MPTCP_TEST macro. But MPTCP_SCHED_TEST macro is different. I know this type of macro is unwelcome. But it's indeed a perfect place to use macro in MPTCP bpf sched tests. From ''' static void test_first(void) { struct mptcp_bpf_first *skel; skel = mptcp_bpf_first__open_and_load(); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: first")) return; test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "first", WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA); mptcp_bpf_first__destroy(skel); } static void test_bkup(void) { struct mptcp_bpf_bkup *skel; skel = mptcp_bpf_bkup__open_and_load(); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: bkup")) return; test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "bkup", WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA); mptcp_bpf_bkup__destroy(skel); } static void test_rr(void) { struct mptcp_bpf_rr *skel; skel = mptcp_bpf_rr__open_and_load(); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: rr")) return; test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "rr", WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA); mptcp_bpf_rr__destroy(skel); } static void test_red(void) { struct mptcp_bpf_red *skel; skel = mptcp_bpf_red__open_and_load(); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: red")) return; test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "red", WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA); mptcp_bpf_red__destroy(skel); } static void test_burst(void) { struct mptcp_bpf_burst *skel; skel = mptcp_bpf_burst__open_and_load(); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: burst")) return; test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "burst", WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA); mptcp_bpf_burst__destroy(skel); } static void test_stale(void) { struct mptcp_bpf_stale *skel; skel = mptcp_bpf_stale__open_and_load(); if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: stale")) return; test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "stale", WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA); mptcp_bpf_stale__destroy(skel); } ''' to ''' #define MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(sched, addr1, addr2) \ static void test_##sched(void) \ { \ struct mptcp_bpf_##sched *skel; \ \ skel = mptcp_bpf_##sched##__open_and_load(); \ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load:" #sched)) \ return; \ \ test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, #sched, addr1, addr2); \ mptcp_bpf_##sched##__destroy(skel); \ } MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(first, WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA); MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(bkup, WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA); MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(rr, WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA); MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(red, WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA); MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(burst, WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA); MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(stale, WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA); ''' We can save so many code, and perfectly use BPF test skeleton template. It's small enough, and be difficult to refactor with a helper function in normal C. Please reconsider whether to delete it, or at least keep it until the day it is officially sent to BPF mail list for review. Thanks, -Geliang > > But, what do you mean "in your tree" ? > That's your development tree and you plan to send all that > properly as patches to bpf-next someday? > > > > > [1] > > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595 > > > > [2] > > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576 > > > > [3] > > https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba > > > > Cheers, > > Matt > > -- > > Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund. > >
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void) close(cgroup_fd); } +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \ +do { \ + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \ + test_##suffix(); \ +} while (0) + void test_mptcp(void) { - if (test__start_subtest("base")) - test_base(); - if (test__start_subtest("mptcpify")) - test_mptcpify(); + RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base); + RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify); }