All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
Cc: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	Dmytro Prokopchuk1 <dmytro_prokopchuk1@epam.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Eclair: scan the last xen-syms linking pass on Arm
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 10:35:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7cadeebd-3ba7-4d8e-9874-aa5f4aeef93e@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22ed9e39767c74e820e964acc2e32a32@bugseng.com>

On 07.10.2026 07:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2026-10-06 18:09, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
>> On 10/6/26 18:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 06.10.2026 16:23, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
>>>> Hiding .xen-syms.[013] assumed the almost-final image is always pass 
>>>> 2.
>>>> On x86 LAST_LINKING_PASS is 2, so .xen-syms.2 stays visible. On Arm
>>>> LAST_LINKING_PASS is 3 and the final image is .xen-syms.3, which was
>>>> hidden. Pass 2 is usually only a symlink, so Eclair saw no program 
>>>> link
>>>> and reported every translation unit as unreachable.
>>>
>>> When I did that work, rule 2.1 ended up clean for both ARM64-* 
>>> analysis
>>> jobs (iirc). Upon re-checking I now see that ARM64-amd has 177 
>>> violations
>>> (apparently that's what you talk about above), but ARM64-allcode has 
>>> none
>>> (https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/pipelines/2916569232).
>>>
>>>> Stop hiding pass 3. Passes 0 and 1 remain excluded.
>>>
>>> This will cause scanning of both passes 2 and 3, i.e. consume more 
>>> time
>>> and report duplicate violations when both passes are real linking 
>>> steps.
>>> I think we want to be smarter than that, to really scan exactly once. 
>>> I
>>> don't have a good idea just yet how to achieve that, though (and I was
>>> wondering already when putting together the original patch).
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> Hmm
>>
>> At the moment
>> (https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/pipelines/2917375773) I
>> see ARM64 R2.1 violations:
>> - 177 in AMD
>> - 249 in allcode
>>
>> Anyway, we can have if-else like this (copied from
>> automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl):
>>
>> -setq=target,getenv("XEN_TARGET_ARCH")
>> if(string_equal(target,"x86_64"),
>>      file_tag+({"xen_syms_tmp", "^xen/\\.xen-syms\\.[013]$"}),
>>      if(string_equal(target,"arm64"),
>>          file_tag+({"xen_syms_tmp", "^xen/\\.xen-syms\\.[012]$"})
>>      )
>> )
>>
>> ^^^ test pipeline is here:
>> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/dimaprkp4k/xen/-/pipelines/2918571749
>>
>> BR, Dmytro.
> 
> In theory we could even generate a configuration file on the fly just 
> before invoking make. See e.g. [1] and [2]. In this way, we can 
> determine programmatically which is the linking step to consider, since 
> the logic involves some conditionals in the Makefile rules.

Hmm, yes, that looks promising.

> In any case 
> intercepting one more command that is just a symlink does not incur in a 
> big cost: only if the intercepted step is another linking command ~5 
> more minutes are needed.

Yet that's an issue, at least as long as the analysis jobs generally
determine pipeline overall latency. Plus with code size (almost) only ever
growing, that time is also only going to (almost) ever grow.

Jan

> [1] 
> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/blob/staging/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/generate_ecl.sh?ref_type=heads
> [2] 
> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen/-/blob/staging/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/generate-linker-symbols.sh?ref_type=heads
> 
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-07  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-06 14:23 [PATCH] Eclair: scan the last xen-syms linking pass on Arm Dmytro Prokopchuk1
2026-10-06 15:03 ` Jan Beulich
2026-10-06 16:09   ` Dmytro Prokopchuk1
2026-10-07  5:45     ` Nicola Vetrini
2026-10-07  8:35       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2026-10-07 17:09         ` Dmytro Prokopchuk1
2026-10-07  8:31     ` Jan Beulich

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=7cadeebd-3ba7-4d8e-9874-aa5f4aeef93e@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=cardoe@cardoe.com \
    --cc=dmytro_prokopchuk1@epam.com \
    --cc=nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.