From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta0.migadu.com (out-179.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF9071B040D for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 16:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749228557; cv=none; b=DRTQI3JIRB7mSf34c8HsZYxDKuz1ZHRE5dLxZ8naAqf11Xu2nzFkFnuh7GEdinQfVUFw8MJmkvK3cRqG4bUXwBtwtnx42GJt0dEg1R4kD3zDAKPtxUzpjuwJDXmAJbOkeT/56JdAMZeTclIKOZy+0aBuquRLtGqQIJi5aIEssMk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749228557; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GTj7lfOSX7gBxkirO8/AUfKMWytxVNvDVBsKlYAE+Tg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SzzNtXWdpXhlkbpeDgvGMT3B3hnQmw0N39FBhyFh7xiyySLa91QI1cB1xUC3V2LXx9G1KWz2BYCz2v70+tJHL/wDvhK/ZmSXUW72P3zZ1WgxCGRNksGo5yccK8QfPTsmpwI3YMvOEKhB2YzyGGb3KVGzVa3IEQ/9GnyPVzwTPHw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=pwEXaIoi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="pwEXaIoi" Message-ID: <9e9d08a4-6e27-4cab-959d-e730cacd75f4@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1749228552; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fd6usMOE933aT8yNlisrsRmepTy7bll5BQySzCKWTk8=; b=pwEXaIoiu1yNRJF+Tk9mhv7EmniOtyPmqFGqwtoqaK6a2ujX6ZZcB+0d4bvLxEWVt5azZx BKzJuwLdcZ12CQxZZtv+wBCGvLtMdvZ4+k0tgzgz9Q6u7T1EvnMdFnc0WdNlKdsMKLUWuU 8mNaetKULd4SfnR7ews0RcH3bETqjsM= Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 09:49:06 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: Fix a few test failures with arm64 64KB page To: Yonghong Song , Andrii Nakryiko Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , kernel-team@fb.com, Martin KaFai Lau References: <20250606032309.444401-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev> <8ff0934e-3073-4535-9ec1-f9ee1379ff4e@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Ihor Solodrai In-Reply-To: <8ff0934e-3073-4535-9ec1-f9ee1379ff4e@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 6/6/25 9:43 AM, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > On 6/6/25 9:30 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 8:23 PM Yonghong Song >> wrote: >>> My local arm64 host has 64KB page size and the VM to run test_progs >>> also has 64KB page size. There are a few self tests assuming 4KB page >>> and hence failed in my envorinment. Patch 1 tries to reduce long assert >> typo: environment >> >>> logs when tail failed. Patches 2-4 fixed three selftest failures. >> How come our BPF CI doesn't catch this on aarch64?.. Ihor, any thoughts? > > In CI for aarch64, the page size is 4KB. For example, for this link: > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/15482212552/ > job/43590176563?pr=9053 > > Find the kconfig, and we have > >   CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES=y >   # CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES is not set >   # CONFIG_ARM64_64K_PAGES is not set > > and for 4K page, all these tests are fine, but not for 64K page. Ah right, I just realized the host pagesize doesn't matter, the kernel we are running tests against needs to be re-compiled with the right config. If this is important to test on CI, it can be another matrix dimension with customized kconfig. Do we want to do that? > > >> >>> Yonghong Song (4): >>>    selftests/bpf: Reduce test_xdp_adjust_frags_tail_grow logs >>>    selftests/bpf: Fix bpf_mod_race test failure with arm64 64KB page >>> size >>>    selftests/bpf: Fix ringbuf/ringbuf_write test failure with arm64 64KB >>>      page size >>>    selftests/bpf: Fix a user_ringbuf failure with arm64 64KB page size >>> >>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_mod_race.c    |  2 +- >>>   .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ringbuf.c |  5 +++-- >>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/user_ringbuf.c    |  6 ++++-- >>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_adjust_tail.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ >>>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_ringbuf_write.c   |  5 +++-- >>>   5 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> -- >>> 2.47.1 >>> >