From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Cc: alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
oss-drivers@netronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 08/19] bpf: insert explicit zero extension insn when hardware doesn't do it implicitly
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 23:51:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1555352013.198bf870q9.naveen@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874l6zfr4f.fsf@netronome.com>
Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> It will be great if you could test the latest set on PowerPC to see if
> there is any regression for example for those under test_progs and
> test_verifier.
With test_bpf, I am seeing a few failures with this patchset.
>
> And it will be even greater if you also use latest llvm snapshot for the
> testing, which then will enable test_progs_32 etc.
Is a newer llvm a dependency? Or, is this also expected to work with
older llvm levels?
The set of tests that are failing are listed further below. I looked
into MUL_X2 and it looks like zero extension for the two initial ALU32
loads (-1) are being removed, resulting in the failure.
I didn't get to look into this in detail -- am I missing something?
- Naveen
---
$ cat ~/jit_fail.out | grep -v "JIT code" | grep -B4 FAIL
test_bpf: #38 INT: MUL_X2 Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=9 proglen=64 pass=3 image=d000000006bfca9c from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret -1 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #39 INT: MUL32_X
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=9 proglen=64 pass=3 image=d000000006c335fc from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret -1 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #49 INT: shifts by register
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=30 proglen=192 pass=3 image=d000000006eb80e4 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret -1234 != -1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #68 ALU_MOV_K: 0x0000ffffffff0000 = 0x00000000ffffffff
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=10 proglen=76 pass=3 image=d000000007290e48 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #75 ALU_ADD_X: 2 + 4294967294 = 0
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=10 proglen=64 pass=3 image=d0000000074537b0 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 0 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #82 ALU_ADD_K: 4294967294 + 2 = 0
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=8 proglen=60 pass=3 image=d00000000761af8c from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 0 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #83 ALU_ADD_K: 0 + (-1) = 0x00000000ffffffff
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=10 proglen=64 pass=3 image=d0000000076579dc from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #86 ALU_ADD_K: 0 + 0x80000000 = 0x80000000
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=10 proglen=64 pass=3 image=d000000007719958 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #87 ALU_ADD_K: 0 + 0x80008000 = 0x80008000
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=10 proglen=72 pass=3 image=d000000007752510 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #118 ALU_MUL_K: 1 * (-1) = 0x00000000ffffffff
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=10 proglen=64 pass=3 image=d000000007f184f8 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #371 JNE signed compare, test 1
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=8 proglen=60 pass=3 image=d000000002394ab8 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
test_bpf: #372 JNE signed compare, test 2
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x0
flen=8 proglen=60 pass=3 image=d0000000023d98b4 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 ret 2 != 1 FAIL (1 times)
Pass 1: shrink = 0, seen = 0x18
Pass 2: shrink = 0, seen = 0x18
flen=13 proglen=92 pass=3 image=d0000000025105f8 from=insmod pid=8923
jited:1 12 PASS
test_bpf: Summary: 366 PASSED, 12 FAILED, [366/366 JIT'ed]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-15 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-12 21:59 [PATCH v3 bpf-next 00/19] bpf: eliminate zero extensions for sub-register writes Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 01/19] bpf: refactor propagate_liveness to eliminate duplicated for loop Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 02/19] bpf: refactor propagate_liveness to eliminate code redundance Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 03/19] bpf: factor out reg and stack slot propagation into "propagate_liveness_reg" Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 04/19] bpf: refactor "check_reg_arg" to eliminate code redundancy Jiong Wang
2019-04-13 0:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-04-13 7:00 ` Jiong Wang
2019-04-15 5:41 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 05/19] bpf: split read liveness into REG_LIVE_READ64 and REG_LIVE_READ32 Jiong Wang
2019-04-13 1:07 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-04-13 6:39 ` Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 06/19] bpf: mark lo32 writes that should be zero extended into hi32 Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 07/19] bpf: reduce false alarm by refining helper call arg types Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 08/19] bpf: insert explicit zero extension insn when hardware doesn't do it implicitly Jiong Wang
2019-04-15 9:59 ` Naveen N. Rao
2019-04-15 10:11 ` Naveen N. Rao
2019-04-15 11:24 ` Jiong Wang
2019-04-15 18:21 ` Naveen N. Rao [this message]
2019-04-15 19:28 ` Jiong Wang
2019-04-16 6:41 ` Naveen N. Rao
2019-04-16 7:47 ` [oss-drivers] " Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 09/19] bpf: introduce new bpf prog load flags "BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32" Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 10/19] bpf: randomize high 32-bit when BPF_F_TEST_RND_HI32 is set Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 11/19] libbpf: add "prog_flags" to bpf_program/bpf_prog_load_attr/bpf_load_program_attr Jiong Wang
2019-04-13 1:08 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 12/19] selftests: enable hi32 randomization for all tests Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 13/19] arm: bpf: eliminate zero extension code-gen Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 14/19] powerpc: " Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 15/19] s390: " Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 16/19] sparc: " Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 17/19] x32: " Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 18/19] riscv: " Jiong Wang
2019-04-12 21:59 ` [PATCH v3 bpf-next 19/19] nfp: " Jiong Wang
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=1555352013.198bf870q9.naveen@linux.ibm.com \
--to=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jiong.wang@netronome.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oss-drivers@netronome.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).