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

Yonghong Song
2022-07-11T06:20:00Z

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.

>
>>>
> …