From: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>,
Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: [PATCH bpf 3/3] selftests/bpf: Adjust wasted entries threshold for ARM64 BRBE
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:03:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260313180352.3800358-4-puranjay@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260313180352.3800358-1-puranjay@kernel.org>
The get_branch_snapshot test checks that bpf_get_branch_snapshot()
doesn't waste too many branch entries on infrastructure overhead. The
threshold of < 10 was calibrated for x86 where about 7 entries are
wasted.
On ARM64, the BPF trampoline generates more branches than x86,
resulting in about 13 wasted entries. The overhead comes from
__bpf_prog_exit_recur which on ARM64 makes out-of-line calls to
__rcu_read_unlock and generates more conditional branches than x86:
[#24] dump_bpf_prog+0x118d0 -> __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x0
[#23] __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x78 -> __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0xf4
[#22] __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0xf8 -> __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x80
[#21] __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x80 -> __rcu_read_unlock+0x0
[#20] __rcu_read_unlock+0x24 -> __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x84
[#19] __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0xe0 -> __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x11c
[#18] __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0x120 -> __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0xe8
[#17] __bpf_prog_exit_recur+0xf0 -> dump_bpf_prog+0x118d4
Increase the threshold to < 16 to accommodate ARM64.
The test passes after the change:
[root@(none) bpf]# ./test_progs -t get_branch_snapshot
#136 get_branch_snapshot:OK
Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
---
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_branch_snapshot.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_branch_snapshot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_branch_snapshot.c
index 0394a1156d99..dcb0ba3d6285 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_branch_snapshot.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_branch_snapshot.c
@@ -116,13 +116,14 @@ void serial_test_get_branch_snapshot(void)
ASSERT_GT(skel->bss->test1_hits, 6, "find_looptest_in_lbr");
- /* Given we stop LBR in software, we will waste a few entries.
+ /* Given we stop LBR/BRBE in software, we will waste a few entries.
* But we should try to waste as few as possible entries. We are at
- * about 7 on x86_64 systems.
- * Add a check for < 10 so that we get heads-up when something
+ * about 7 on x86_64 and about 13 on arm64 systems (the arm64 BPF
+ * trampoline generates more branches than x86_64).
+ * Add a check for < 16 so that we get heads-up when something
* changes and wastes too many entries.
*/
- ASSERT_LT(skel->bss->wasted_entries, 10, "check_wasted_entries");
+ ASSERT_LT(skel->bss->wasted_entries, 16, "check_wasted_entries");
cleanup:
get_branch_snapshot__destroy(skel);
--
2.52.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-13 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-13 18:03 [PATCH bpf 0/3] arm64: Add BRBE support for bpf_get_branch_snapshot() Puranjay Mohan
2026-03-13 18:03 ` [PATCH bpf 1/3] perf/arm_pmuv3: Fix NULL pointer dereference in armv8pmu_sched_task() Puranjay Mohan
2026-03-13 18:03 ` [PATCH bpf 2/3] perf/arm64: Add BRBE support for bpf_get_branch_snapshot() Puranjay Mohan
2026-03-13 19:59 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-03-13 21:03 ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-03-13 18:03 ` Puranjay Mohan [this message]
2026-03-18 13:36 ` [PATCH bpf 0/3] arm64: " Puranjay Mohan
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=20260313180352.3800358-4-puranjay@kernel.org \
--to=puranjay@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=leo.yan@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=puranjay12@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox