mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mykyta Yatsenko <mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com>
To: Maya Matuszczyk <mayamatuszczyk@google.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Cc: Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] selftests/bpf: Run test_perf_branches more than 1 time
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2026 15:06:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ac74b9b-3738-49c7-bf44-70b72a1ec1b1@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260605130601.2699172-1-mayamatuszczyk@google.com>

On 6/5/26 2:06 PM, Maya Matuszczyk wrote:
> test_perf_branches bpf program was only being ran once, and
> perf_branches test would fail if the only sample that was passed to
> test_perf_branches didn't have branch data.
> Fix those failures by running it a few more times and waiting until a valid
> sample shows up, and leave the perf event only enabled for the duration of
> test spins.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maya Matuszczyk <mayamatuszczyk@google.com>
> ---

Change looks good.
minor nit: Maybe it makes sense to migrate all CHECKs in this test to ASSERT, 
though.

Acked-by: Mykyta Yatsenko <yatsenko@meta.com>

> Changes from v1:
> - Switched from CHECK to ASSERT_OK (Alexei Starovoitov)
> - bpf -> bpf-next
> 
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260408095710.4090495-1-mayamatuszczyk@google.com/
> ---
>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_branches.c  | 57 +++++++++++++------
>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_perf_branches.c  | 11 ++--
>  2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_branches.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_branches.c
> index 0a7ef770c487..153afcdc082e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_branches.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/perf_branches.c
> @@ -15,10 +15,6 @@ static void check_good_sample(struct test_perf_branches *skel)
>  	int pbe_size = sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry);
>  	int duration = 0;
>  
> -	if (CHECK(!skel->bss->run_cnt, "invalid run_cnt",
> -		  "checked sample validity before prog run"))
> -		return;
> -
>  	if (CHECK(!skel->bss->valid, "output not valid",
>  		 "no valid sample from prog"))
>  		return;
> @@ -49,10 +45,6 @@ static void check_bad_sample(struct test_perf_branches *skel)
>  	int written_stack = skel->bss->written_stack_out;
>  	int duration = 0;
>  
> -	if (CHECK(!skel->bss->run_cnt, "invalid run_cnt",
> -		  "checked sample validity before prog run"))
> -		return;
> -
>  	if (CHECK(!skel->bss->valid, "output not valid",
>  		 "no valid sample from prog"))
>  		return;
> @@ -73,7 +65,6 @@ static void test_perf_branches_common(int perf_fd,
>  	bool detached = false;
>  	struct bpf_link *link;
>  	volatile int j = 0;
> -	cpu_set_t cpu_set;
>  
>  	skel = test_perf_branches__open_and_load();
>  	if (CHECK(!skel, "test_perf_branches_load",
> @@ -85,19 +76,35 @@ static void test_perf_branches_common(int perf_fd,
>  	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(link, "attach_perf_event"))
>  		goto out_destroy_skel;
>  
> -	/* generate some branches on cpu 0 */
> -	CPU_ZERO(&cpu_set);
> -	CPU_SET(0, &cpu_set);
> -	err = pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(cpu_set), &cpu_set);
> -	if (CHECK(err, "set_affinity", "cpu #0, err %d\n", err))
> +	err = ioctl(perf_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_RESET, 0);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_RESET)"))
>  		goto out_destroy;
>  
> -	/* Spin the loop for a while by using a high iteration count, and by
> -	 * checking whether the specific run count marker has been explicitly
> -	 * incremented at least once by the backing perf_event BPF program.
> +	err = ioctl(perf_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_REFRESH, 10);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_REFRESH)"))
> +		goto out_destroy;
> +
> +	/* Make up a bunch of branch events until we time out or bpf prog sets a flag
> +	 * that it caught a valid event. To be completely sure that required_size_out,
> +	 * written_stack_out or written_global_out writes and reads won't get
> +	 * reordered by anyone in a way that would fail this test, use atomic
> +	 * operations
>  	 */
> -	for (i = 0; i < 100000000 && !*(volatile int *)&skel->bss->run_cnt; ++i)
> +	for (i = 0; i < 100000000; ++i) {
> +		/* This technically should be an atomic load with acquire
> +		 * ordering, but we don't want to clog up memory bus while
> +		 * spinning
> +		 */
> +		if (READ_ONCE(skel->bss->valid) > 0)
> +			break;
>  		++j;
> +	}
> +
> +	__atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +
> +	err = ioctl(perf_fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE)"))
> +		goto out_destroy;
>  
>  	test_perf_branches__detach(skel);
>  	detached = true;
> @@ -121,6 +128,7 @@ static void test_perf_branches_hw(void)
>  	attr.size = sizeof(attr);
>  	attr.type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE;
>  	attr.config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES;
> +	attr.disabled = 1;
>  	attr.freq = 1;
>  	attr.sample_freq = 1000;
>  	attr.sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK;
> @@ -162,6 +170,7 @@ static void test_perf_branches_no_hw(void)
>  	attr.size = sizeof(attr);
>  	attr.type = PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE;
>  	attr.config = PERF_COUNT_SW_CPU_CLOCK;
> +	attr.disabled = 1;
>  	attr.freq = 1;
>  	attr.sample_freq = 1000;
>  	pfd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, -1, 0, -1, PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC);
> @@ -175,6 +184,18 @@ static void test_perf_branches_no_hw(void)
>  
>  void test_perf_branches(void)
>  {
> +	int err, duration = 0;
> +	cpu_set_t cpu_set;
> +
> +	/* Pin ourselves to cpu0 so that all branches we generate would be
> +	 * also on cpu0
> +	 */
> +	CPU_ZERO(&cpu_set);
> +	CPU_SET(0, &cpu_set);
> +	err = pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(cpu_set), &cpu_set);
> +	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "pthread_set_affinity"))
> +		return;
> +
>  	if (test__start_subtest("perf_branches_hw"))
>  		test_perf_branches_hw();
>  	if (test__start_subtest("perf_branches_no_hw"))
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_perf_branches.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_perf_branches.c
> index 05ac9410cd68..9806414cebc4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_perf_branches.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_perf_branches.c
> @@ -8,7 +8,6 @@
>  #include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>  
>  int valid = 0;
> -int run_cnt = 0;
>  int required_size_out = 0;
>  int written_stack_out = 0;
>  int written_global_out = 0;
> @@ -25,13 +24,11 @@ int perf_branches(void *ctx)
>  	__u64 entries[4 * 3] = {0};
>  	int required_size, written_stack, written_global;
>  
> -	++run_cnt;
> -
>  	/* write to stack */
>  	written_stack = bpf_read_branch_records(ctx, entries, sizeof(entries), 0);
>  	/* ignore spurious events */
>  	if (!written_stack)
> -		return 1;
> +		return 0;
>  
>  	/* get required size */
>  	required_size = bpf_read_branch_records(ctx, NULL, 0,
> @@ -40,14 +37,14 @@ int perf_branches(void *ctx)
>  	written_global = bpf_read_branch_records(ctx, fpbe, sizeof(fpbe), 0);
>  	/* ignore spurious events */
>  	if (!written_global)
> -		return 1;
> +		return 0;
>  
>  	required_size_out = required_size;
>  	written_stack_out = written_stack;
>  	written_global_out = written_global;
> -	valid = 1;
> +	__atomic_add_fetch(&valid, 1, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	return 1;
>  }
>  
>  char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";


      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-06-05 14:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-05 13:06 Maya Matuszczyk
2026-06-05 13:58 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-06-05 14:06 ` Mykyta Yatsenko [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5ac74b9b-3738-49c7-bf44-70b72a1ec1b1@gmail.com \
    --to=mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
    --cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
    --cc=mayamatuszczyk@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®