I was able to confirm from the documentation that bpf_map_update_elem is an atomic operation if done on HASH_MAPs. Source (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/bpf.2.html). [Cite: map_update_elem() replaces existing elements atomically]
My question is 2 folds.
What if the element does not exist, is the map_update_elem still atomic?
Is the XDP operation bpf_map_delete_elem thread safe from User space program?
The map is a HASH_MAP.
Atomic ops, race conditions and thread safety are sort of complex in eBPF, so I will make a broad answer since it is hard to judge from your question what your goals are.
Yes, both the bpf_map_update_elem command via the syscall and the helper function update the maps 'atmomically', which in this case means that if we go from value 'A' to value 'B' that the program always sees either 'A' or 'B' not some combination of the two(first bytes of 'B' and last bytes of 'A' for example). This is true for all map types. This holds true for all map modifying syscall commands(including bpf_map_delete_elem).
This however doesn't make race conditions impossible since the value of the map may have changed between a map_lookup_elem and the moment you update it.
What is also good to keep in mind is that the map_lookup_elem syscall command(userspace) works differently from the helper function(kernelspace). The syscall will always return a copy of the data which isn't mutable. But the helper function will return a pointer to the location in kernel memory where the map value is stored, and you can directly update the map value this way without using the map_update_elem helper. That is why you often see hash maps used like:
value = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&hash_map, &key);
if (value) {
__sync_fetch_and_add(&value->packets, 1);
__sync_fetch_and_add(&value->bytes, skb->len);
} else {
struct pair val = {1, skb->len};
bpf_map_update_elem(&hash_map, &key, &val, BPF_ANY);
}
Note that in this example, __sync_fetch_and_add is used to update parts of the map value. We need to do this since updating it like value->packets++; or value->packets += 1 would result in a race condition. The __sync_fetch_and_add emits a atomic CPU instruction which in this case fetches, adds and writes back all in one instruction.
Also, in this example, the two struct fields are atomically updated, but not together, it is still possible for the packets to have incremented but bytes not yet. If you want to avoid this you need to use a spinlock(using the bpf_spin_lock and bpf_spin_unlock helpers).
Another way to sidestep the issue entirely is to use the _PER_CPU variants of maps, where you trade-off congestion/speed and memory use.
Find the example here.
def a = condition ? " karate match statement " : "karate match statement"
Is it possible to do something like this??
This is not recommended practice for tests because tests should be deterministic.
The right thing to do is:
craft your request so that the response is 100% predictable. do not worry about code-duplication, this is sometimes necessary for tests
ignore the dynamic data if it is not relevant to the Scenario
use conditional logic to set "expected value" variables instead of complicating your match logic
use self-validation expressions or schema-validation expressions for specific parts of the JSON
use the if keyword and call a second feature file - or you can even set the name of the file to call dynamically via a variable
in some cases karate.abort() can be used to conditionally skip / exit early
That said, if you really insist on doing this in the same flow, Karate allows you to do a match via JS in 0.9.6.RC4 onwards.
See this thread for details: https://github.com/intuit/karate/issues/1202#issuecomment-653632397
The result of karate.match() will return a JSON in the form { pass: '#boolean', message: '#string' }
If none of the above options work - that means you are doing something really complicated, so write Java interop / code to handle this
Find the example here.
def a = condition ? " karate match statement " : "karate match statement"
Is it possible to do something like this??
This is not recommended practice for tests because tests should be deterministic.
The right thing to do is:
craft your request so that the response is 100% predictable. do not worry about code-duplication, this is sometimes necessary for tests
ignore the dynamic data if it is not relevant to the Scenario
use conditional logic to set "expected value" variables instead of complicating your match logic
use self-validation expressions or schema-validation expressions for specific parts of the JSON
use the if keyword and call a second feature file - or you can even set the name of the file to call dynamically via a variable
in some cases karate.abort() can be used to conditionally skip / exit early
That said, if you really insist on doing this in the same flow, Karate allows you to do a match via JS in 0.9.6.RC4 onwards.
See this thread for details: https://github.com/intuit/karate/issues/1202#issuecomment-653632397
The result of karate.match() will return a JSON in the form { pass: '#boolean', message: '#string' }
If none of the above options work - that means you are doing something really complicated, so write Java interop / code to handle this
I started using smalltalk and I am trying to add a new assignment operator :>.
The current operator used in pharo is no selector so I started to look into the class Scanner where the underscore _ can be enabled for assignments. I've tried to do it in a similar way but it did not work.
Do you have any idea or suggestion about how I achieve that?
For a start, have a look at the Method Scanner>>#xColon. This method is called whenever a colon is encountered in the input. By adding the following snippet to the top of the method, you can make it detect your new assignment token :>:
aheadChar = $> ifTrue: [
self step.
tokenType := #leftArrow.
self step.
^ token := #':=' ]
Like this :> behaves exactly like the normal assignment. By customising tokenType and token you can pass your new assignment operator to the parser (see Parser>>#expression and Parser>>#assignment:) and build a different AST (i.e. to achieve a different execution behaviour).
If you are interested in more flexibility you might want to look at Helvetia. Helvetia is a language workbench for Pharo that allows you to modify the host language and adapt the tools in a more modular fashion. One of the examples included with the distribution (CUSwapExample) is adding two new assignment operators to Smalltalk.
Sometimes I'm writing ugly if-else statements in C# 3.5; I'm aware of some different approaches to simplifying that with table-driven development, class hierarchy, anonimous methods and some more.
The problem is that alternatives are still less wide-spread than writing traditional ugly if-else statements because there is no convention for that.
What depth of nested if-else is normal for C# 3.5? What methods do you expect to see instead of nested if-else the first? the second?
if i have ten input parameters with 3 states in each, i should map functions to combination of each state of each parameter (really less, because not all the states are valid, but sometimes still a lot). I can express these states as a hashtable key and a handler (lambda) which will be called if key matches.
It is still mix of table-driven, data-driven dev. ideas and pattern matching.
what i'm looking for is extending for C# such approaches as this for scripting (C# 3.5 is rather like scripting)
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2004/02/24/79292.aspx
Good question. "Conditional Complexity" is a code smell. Polymorphism is your friend.
Conditional logic is innocent in its infancy, when it’s simple to understand and contained within a
few lines of code. Unfortunately, it rarely ages well. You implement several new features and
suddenly your conditional logic becomes complicated and expansive. [Joshua Kerevsky: Refactoring to Patterns]
One of the simplest things you can do to avoid nested if blocks is to learn to use Guard Clauses.
double getPayAmount() {
if (_isDead) return deadAmount();
if (_isSeparated) return separatedAmount();
if (_isRetired) return retiredAmount();
return normalPayAmount();
};
The other thing I have found simplifies things pretty well, and which makes your code self-documenting, is Consolidating conditionals.
double disabilityAmount() {
if (isNotEligableForDisability()) return 0;
// compute the disability amount
Other valuable refactoring techniques associated with conditional expressions include Decompose Conditional, Replace Conditional with Visitor, Specification Pattern, and Reverse Conditional.
There are very old "formalisms" for trying to encapsulate extremely complex expressions that evaluate many possibly independent variables, for example, "decision tables" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table
But, I'll join in the choir here to second the ideas mentioned of judicious use of the ternary operator if possible, identifying the most unlikely conditions which if met allow you to terminate the rest of the evaluation by excluding them first, and add ... the reverse of that ... trying to factor out the most probable conditions and states that can allow you to proceed without testing of the "fringe" cases.
The suggestion by Miriam (above) is fascinating, even elegant, as "conceptual art;" and I am actually going to try it out, trying to "bracket" my suspicion that it will lead to code that is harder to maintain.
My pragmatic side says there is no "one size fits all" answer here in the absence of a pretty specific code example, and complete description of the conditions and their interactions.
I'm a fan of "flag setting" : meaning anytime my application goes into some less common "mode" or "state" I set a boolean flag (which might even be static for the class) : for me that simplifies writing complex if/then else evaluations later on.
best, Bill
Simple. Take the body of the if and make a method out of it.
This works because most if statements are of the form:
if (condition):
action()
In other cases, more specifically :
if (condition1):
if (condition2):
action()
simplify to:
if (condition1 && condition2):
action()
I'm a big fan of the ternary operator which get's overlooked by a lot of people. It's great for assigning values to variables based on conditions. like this
foobarString = (foo == bar) ? "foo equals bar" : "foo does not equal bar";
Try this article for more info.
It wont solve all your problems, but it is very economical.
I know that this is not the answer you are looking for, but without context your questions is very hard to answer. The problem is that the way to refactor such a thing really depends on your code, what it is doing, and what you are trying to accomplish. If you had said that you were checking the type of an object in these conditionals we could throw out an answer like 'use polymorphism', but sometimes you actually do just need some if statements, and sometimes those statements can be refactored into something more simple. Without a code sample it is hard to say which category you are in.
I was told years ago by an instructor that 3 is a magic number. And as he applied it it-else statements he suggested that if I needed more that 3 if's then I should probably use a case statement instead.
switch (testValue)
{
case = 1:
// do something
break;
case = 2:
// do something else
break;
case = 3:
// do something more
break;
case = 4
// do what?
break;
default:
throw new Exception("I didn't do anything");
}
If you're nesting if statements more than 3 deep then you should probably take that as a sign that there is a better way. Probably like Avirdlg suggested, separating the nested if statements into 1 or more methods. If you feel you are absolutely stuck with multiple if-else statements then I would wrap all the if-else statements into a single method so it didn't ugly up other code.
If the entire purpose is to assign a different value to some variable based upon the state of various conditionals, I use a ternery operator.
If the If Else clauses are performing separate chunks of functionality. and the conditions are complex, simplify by creating temporary boolean variables to hold the true/false value of the complex boolean expressions. These variables should be suitably named to represent the business sense of what the complex expression is calculating. Then use the boolean variables in the If else synatx instead of the complex boolean expressions.
One thing I find myself doing at times is inverting the condition followed by return; several such tests in a row can help reduce nesting of if and else.
Not a C# answer, but you probably would like pattern matching. With pattern matching, you can take several inputs, and do simultaneous matches on all of them. For example (F#):
let x=
match cond1, cond2, name with
| _, _, "Bob" -> 9000 // Bob gets 9000, regardless of cond1 or 2
| false, false, _ -> 0
| true, false, _ -> 1
| false, true, _ -> 2
| true, true, "" -> 0 // Both conds but no name gets 0
| true, true, _ -> 3 // Cond1&2 give 3
You can express any combination to create a match (this just scratches the surface). However, C# doesn't support this, and I doubt it will any time soon. Meanwhile, there are some attempts to try this in C#, such as here: http://codebetter.com/blogs/matthew.podwysocki/archive/2008/09/16/functional-c-pattern-matching.aspx. Google can turn up many more; perhaps one will suit you.
try to use patterns like strategy or command
In simple cases you should be able to get around with basic functional decomposition. For more complex scenarios I used Specification Pattern with great success.