Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 8/8] bpf: add a selftest for cgroup hierarchical stats collection

Hao Luo
2022-07-12T00:44:31Z

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 11:19 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/10/22 11:01 PM, Hao Luo wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 5:51 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/10/22 5:26 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> BTW, CI also reported the test failure.
> >> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/3284
> >>
> >> For example, with gcc built kernel,
> >> https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/7272407890?check_suite_focus=true
> >>
> >> The error:
> >>
> >> get_cgroup_vmscan_delay:PASS:cgroup_id 0 nsec
> >> get_cgroup_vmscan_delay:PASS:vmscan_reading 0 nsec
> >> check_vmscan_stats:FAIL:child1_vmscan unexpected child1_vmscan:
> >> actual 28390910 != expected 28390909
> >> check_vmscan_stats:FAIL:child2_vmscan unexpected child2_vmscan:
> >> actual 0 != expected -2
> >> check_vmscan_stats:PASS:test_vmscan 0 nsec
> >> check_vmscan_stats:PASS:root_vmscan 0 nsec
> >>
> >
> > Yonghong,
> >
> > I noticed that the test only failed on test_progs-no_alu32, not
> > test_progs. test_progs passed. I believe Yosry and I have only tested
>
> In my case, both test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32 failed the test.
> I think the reason for the failure is the same.
>
> > on test_progs. I tried building and running the no_alu32 version, but
> > so far, not able to run test_progs-no_alu32. Whenever I ran
> > test_progs-no_alu32, it exits without any message. Do you have any
> > clue what could be wrong?
>
> It works fine in my environment. test_progs should be very similar to
> test_progs-no_alu32. The only difference is bpf programs with different
> insn set. Some tests may not run with test_progs-no_alu32, e.g., newer
> atomic insn tests.
>
> I have no idea why test_progs-no_alu32 won't work for you, I guess you
> may need to debug it a little bit.
>

Yonghong, I reproduced the failure using vmtest.sh now. Yosry and I
are debugging it. Once we have any result, we will report back. Thanks
for taking a look.

> >
> >>>
> > …