ci: add qemu boot test #8
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
RevySR
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
Signed-off-by: Qinghao Shi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Qinghao Shi <[email protected]>
RevySR
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2024
commit d4f9d5a upstream. A system crash like this Failing address: 200000cb7df6f000 TEID: 200000cb7df6f403 Fault in home space mode while using kernel ASCE. AS:00000002d71bc007 R3:00000003fe5b8007 S:000000011a446000 P:000000015660c13d Oops: 0038 ilc:3 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Modules linked in: mlx5_ib ... CPU: 8 PID: 7556 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.9.0-rc7 #8 Hardware name: IBM 3931 A01 704 (LPAR) Krnl PSW : 0704e00180000000 0000014b75e7b606 (ap_parse_bitmap_str+0x10e/0x1f8) R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:2 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3 Krnl GPRS: 0000000000000001 ffffffffffffffc0 0000000000000001 00000048f96b75d3 000000cb00000100 ffffffffffffffff ffffffffffffffff 000000cb7df6fce0 000000cb7df6fce0 00000000ffffffff 000000000000002b 00000048ffffffff 000003ff9b2dbc80 200000cb7df6fcd8 0000014bffffffc0 000000cb7df6fbc8 Krnl Code: 0000014b75e7b5fc: a7840047 brc 8,0000014b75e7b68a 0000014b75e7b600: 18b2 lr %r11,%r2 #0000014b75e7b602: a7f4000a brc 15,0000014b75e7b616 >0000014b75e7b606: eb22d00000e6 laog %r2,%r2,0(%r13) 0000014b75e7b60c: a7680001 lhi %r6,1 0000014b75e7b610: 187b lr %r7,%r11 0000014b75e7b612: 84960021 brxh %r9,%r6,0000014b75e7b654 0000014b75e7b616: 18e9 lr %r14,%r9 Call Trace: [<0000014b75e7b606>] ap_parse_bitmap_str+0x10e/0x1f8 ([<0000014b75e7b5dc>] ap_parse_bitmap_str+0xe4/0x1f8) [<0000014b75e7b758>] apmask_store+0x68/0x140 [<0000014b75679196>] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x14e/0x1e8 [<0000014b75598524>] vfs_write+0x1b4/0x448 [<0000014b7559894c>] ksys_write+0x74/0x100 [<0000014b7618a440>] __do_syscall+0x268/0x328 [<0000014b761a3558>] system_call+0x70/0x98 INFO: lockdep is turned off. Last Breaking-Event-Address: [<0000014b75e7b636>] ap_parse_bitmap_str+0x13e/0x1f8 Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception: panic_on_oops occured when /sys/bus/ap/a[pq]mask was updated with a relative mask value (like +0x10-0x12,+60,-90) with one of the numeric values exceeding INT_MAX. The fix is simple: use unsigned long values for the internal variables. The correct checks are already in place in the function but a simple int for the internal variables was used with the possibility to overflow. Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Harald Freudenberger <[email protected]> Tested-by: Marc Hartmayer <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Holger Dengler <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2024
commit 9d274c1 upstream. We have been seeing crashes on duplicate keys in btrfs_set_item_key_safe(): BTRFS critical (device vdb): slot 4 key (450 108 8192) new key (450 108 8192) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2620! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI CPU: 0 PID: 3139 Comm: xfs_io Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0 #6 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-2.fc40 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:btrfs_set_item_key_safe+0x11f/0x290 [btrfs] With the following stack trace: #0 btrfs_set_item_key_safe (fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2620:4) #1 btrfs_drop_extents (fs/btrfs/file.c:411:4) #2 log_one_extent (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:4732:9) #3 btrfs_log_changed_extents (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:4955:9) #4 btrfs_log_inode (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:6626:9) #5 btrfs_log_inode_parent (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:7070:8) #6 btrfs_log_dentry_safe (fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:7171:8) #7 btrfs_sync_file (fs/btrfs/file.c:1933:8) #8 vfs_fsync_range (fs/sync.c:188:9) #9 vfs_fsync (fs/sync.c:202:9) #10 do_fsync (fs/sync.c:212:9) #11 __do_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:225:9) #12 __se_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:223:1) #13 __x64_sys_fdatasync (fs/sync.c:223:1) #14 do_syscall_x64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:52:14) #15 do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:83:7) #16 entry_SYSCALL_64+0xaf/0x14c (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:121) So we're logging a changed extent from fsync, which is splitting an extent in the log tree. But this split part already exists in the tree, triggering the BUG(). This is the state of the log tree at the time of the crash, dumped with drgn (https://github.com/osandov/drgn/blob/main/contrib/btrfs_tree.py) to get more details than btrfs_print_leaf() gives us: >>> print_extent_buffer(prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()[0]["eb"]) leaf 33439744 level 0 items 72 generation 9 owner 18446744073709551610 leaf 33439744 flags 0x100000000000000 fs uuid e5bd3946-400c-4223-8923-190ef1f18677 chunk uuid d58cb17e-6d02-494a-829a-18b7d8a399da item 0 key (450 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 16123 itemsize 160 generation 7 transid 9 size 8192 nbytes 8473563889606862198 block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0 sequence 204 flags 0x10(PREALLOC) atime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) ctime 1716417704.983333333 (2024-05-22 15:41:44) mtime 1716417704.983333333 (2024-05-22 15:41:44) otime 17592186044416.000000000 (559444-03-08 01:40:16) item 1 key (450 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 16110 itemsize 13 index 195 namelen 3 name: 193 item 2 key (450 XATTR_ITEM 1640047104) itemoff 16073 itemsize 37 location key (0 UNKNOWN.0 0) type XATTR transid 7 data_len 1 name_len 6 name: user.a data a item 3 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 16020 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 1 (regular) extent data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 extent data offset 0 nr 4096 ram 12288 extent compression 0 (none) item 4 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 15967 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 prealloc data offset 4096 nr 8192 item 5 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 15914 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 prealloc data offset 8192 nr 4096 ... So the real problem happened earlier: notice that items 4 (4k-12k) and 5 (8k-12k) overlap. Both are prealloc extents. Item 4 straddles i_size and item 5 starts at i_size. Here is the state of the filesystem tree at the time of the crash: >>> root = prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()[2]["inode"].root >>> ret, nodes, slots = btrfs_search_slot(root, BtrfsKey(450, 0, 0)) >>> print_extent_buffer(nodes[0]) leaf 30425088 level 0 items 184 generation 9 owner 5 leaf 30425088 flags 0x100000000000000 fs uuid e5bd3946-400c-4223-8923-190ef1f18677 chunk uuid d58cb17e-6d02-494a-829a-18b7d8a399da ... item 179 key (450 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 4907 itemsize 160 generation 7 transid 7 size 4096 nbytes 12288 block group 0 mode 100600 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0 sequence 6 flags 0x10(PREALLOC) atime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) ctime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) mtime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) otime 1716417703.220000000 (2024-05-22 15:41:43) item 180 key (450 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 4894 itemsize 13 index 195 namelen 3 name: 193 item 181 key (450 XATTR_ITEM 1640047104) itemoff 4857 itemsize 37 location key (0 UNKNOWN.0 0) type XATTR transid 7 data_len 1 name_len 6 name: user.a data a item 182 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 4804 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 1 (regular) extent data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 extent data offset 0 nr 8192 ram 12288 extent compression 0 (none) item 183 key (450 EXTENT_DATA 8192) itemoff 4751 itemsize 53 generation 9 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 303144960 nr 12288 prealloc data offset 8192 nr 4096 Item 5 in the log tree corresponds to item 183 in the filesystem tree, but nothing matches item 4. Furthermore, item 183 is the last item in the leaf. btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() is responsible for logging prealloc extents beyond i_size. It first truncates any previously logged prealloc extents that start beyond i_size. Then, it walks the filesystem tree and copies the prealloc extent items to the log tree. If it hits the end of a leaf, then it calls btrfs_next_leaf(), which unlocks the tree and does another search. However, while the filesystem tree is unlocked, an ordered extent completion may modify the tree. In particular, it may insert an extent item that overlaps with an extent item that was already copied to the log tree. This may manifest in several ways depending on the exact scenario, including an EEXIST error that is silently translated to a full sync, overlapping items in the log tree, or this crash. This particular crash is triggered by the following sequence of events: - Initially, the file has i_size=4k, a regular extent from 0-4k, and a prealloc extent beyond i_size from 4k-12k. The prealloc extent item is the last item in its B-tree leaf. - The file is fsync'd, which copies its inode item and both extent items to the log tree. - An xattr is set on the file, which sets the BTRFS_INODE_COPY_EVERYTHING flag. - The range 4k-8k in the file is written using direct I/O. i_size is extended to 8k, but the ordered extent is still in flight. - The file is fsync'd. Since BTRFS_INODE_COPY_EVERYTHING is set, this calls copy_inode_items_to_log(), which calls btrfs_log_prealloc_extents(). - btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() finds the 4k-12k prealloc extent in the filesystem tree. Since it starts before i_size, it skips it. Since it is the last item in its B-tree leaf, it calls btrfs_next_leaf(). - btrfs_next_leaf() unlocks the path. - The ordered extent completion runs, which converts the 4k-8k part of the prealloc extent to written and inserts the remaining prealloc part from 8k-12k. - btrfs_next_leaf() does a search and finds the new prealloc extent 8k-12k. - btrfs_log_prealloc_extents() copies the 8k-12k prealloc extent into the log tree. Note that it overlaps with the 4k-12k prealloc extent that was copied to the log tree by the first fsync. - fsync calls btrfs_log_changed_extents(), which tries to log the 4k-8k extent that was written. - This tries to drop the range 4k-8k in the log tree, which requires adjusting the start of the 4k-12k prealloc extent in the log tree to 8k. - btrfs_set_item_key_safe() sees that there is already an extent starting at 8k in the log tree and calls BUG(). Fix this by detecting when we're about to insert an overlapping file extent item in the log tree and truncating the part that would overlap. CC: [email protected] # 6.1+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2024
…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
RevySR
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2024
…s in tail_call This patch solves the 10 tail_call testing issues in test_bpf. At this point, all tests of test_bpf in BPF_JIT mode have passed. Here is the comparison between s64ilp32, s64lp64 and s32ilp32: - s64lp64 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 188 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 180 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 203 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 225 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 145 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 195 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 997 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 155563 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 164 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 136 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s64ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1026 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [1014/1014 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 160 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 221 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 251 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 275 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 198 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 262 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 1390 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 204492 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 199 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 168 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` - s32ilp32 ``` ... test_bpf: Summary: 1027 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [832/1015 JIT'ed] test_bpf: #0 Tail call leaf jited:1 266 PASS test_bpf: #1 Tail call 2 jited:1 409 PASS test_bpf: #2 Tail call 3 jited:1 481 PASS test_bpf: #3 Tail call 4 jited:1 537 PASS test_bpf: #4 Tail call load/store leaf jited:1 325 PASS test_bpf: #5 Tail call load/store jited:1 427 PASS test_bpf: #6 Tail call error path, max count reached jited:1 3050 PASS test_bpf: #7 Tail call count preserved across function calls jited:1 255522 PASS test_bpf: #8 Tail call error path, NULL target jited:1 315 PASS test_bpf: #9 Tail call error path, index out of range jited:1 280 PASS test_bpf: test_tail_calls: Summary: 10 PASSED, 0 FAILED, [10/10 JIT'ed] ... test_bpf: test_skb_segment: Summary: 2 PASSED, 0 FAILED ``` Actually, s64ilp32 and s64lp64 perform consistently, both in terms of the number that can be executed by JIT and execution time. while, only 80% of cases in s32ilp32 can be executed by JIT, and the execution time is also longer under the same JIT execution situation. Signed-off-by: Chen Pei <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds the CI test for booting Linux on Xuantie Qemu 64bit
32bit Linux booting test will be add from separate PR
Sample Github Action CI can be found at :
https://github.com/jamesbeyond/linux-xuantie-kernel/actions/runs/8987725747