From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
To: sun jian <sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: bpf_cookie: make perf_event subtest trigger reliably
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:32:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aadTZ8r5XAn4-pOt@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABFUUZGAK-kD75QAc8acfoGvPVj+EuaFNLT7rcPcWP7SOnpKqw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 10:15:26AM +0800, sun jian wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 6:02 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 03:45:55PM +0800, Sun Jian wrote:
> > > The perf_event subtest relies on SW_CPU_CLOCK sampling to trigger the BPF
> > > -static void burn_cpu(void)
> > > +static void burn_cpu(long loops)
> >
> > nit, there's another burn_cpu in prog_tests/perf_link.c,
> > we could add it to trace_helpers.c or test_progs.c
> >
>
> happy to refactor into a shared helper if maintainers prefer, but I keep it
> local to minimize the diff.
>
> > > {
> > > - volatile int j = 0;
> > > + long j = 0;
> > > cpu_set_t cpu_set;
> > > - int i, err;
> > > + long i;
> > > + int err;
> > >
> > > /* generate some branches on cpu 0 */
> > > CPU_ZERO(&cpu_set);
> > > @@ -443,9 +445,10 @@ static void burn_cpu(void)
> > > err = pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(), sizeof(cpu_set), &cpu_set);
> > > ASSERT_OK(err, "set_thread_affinity");
> > >
> > > - /* spin the loop for a while (random high number) */
> > > - for (i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i)
> > > + for (i = 0; i < loops; ++i) {
> > > ++j;
> > > + barrier();
> >
> > what's the rationale for barrier call in here,
> > together with the volatile change above?
> >
>
> The burn_cpu() loop is only meant to consume CPU time to reliably trigger the
> SW_CPU_CLOCK perf_event overflow. With an side-effect-free loop, the
> compiler may optimize the loop away or significantly shrink it under -O2.
>
> The old version relied on volatile to prevent the loop from being optimized, but
> checkpatch warns against it. Using barrier() achieves the same goal — keep the
> loop intact as a CPU-burn — while making the intent more explicit.
ok, would be great to have this in the changelog, other than that:
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
thanks,
jirka
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-03 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-28 7:45 [PATCH v2 0/2] selftests/bpf: fix bpf_cookie failures Sun Jian
2026-02-28 7:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] selftests/bpf: bpf_cookie: skip kprobe_multi tests without bpf_testmod Sun Jian
2026-03-02 10:02 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-02-28 7:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: bpf_cookie: make perf_event subtest trigger reliably Sun Jian
2026-03-02 10:02 ` Jiri Olsa
2026-03-03 2:15 ` sun jian
2026-03-03 21:32 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2026-03-05 23:10 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] selftests/bpf: fix bpf_cookie failures patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=aadTZ8r5XAn4-pOt@krava \
--to=olsajiri@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=sun.jian.kdev@gmail.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