Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix pyperf180 compilation failure with llvm18

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 21:30 -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> With latest llvm18 (main branch of llvm-project repo), when building bpf selftests,
>     [~/work/bpf-next (master)]$ make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf LLVM=1 -j
> 
> The following compilation error happens:
>     fatal error: error in backend: Branch target out of insn range
>     ...
>     Stack dump:
>     0.      Program arguments: clang -g -Wall -Werror -D__TARGET_ARCH_x86 -mlittle-endian
>       -I/home/yhs/work/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/tools/include
>       -I/home/yhs/work/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf -I/home/yhs/work/bpf-next/tools/include/uapi
>       -I/home/yhs/work/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/usr/include -idirafter
>       /home/yhs/work/llvm-project/llvm/build.18/install/lib/clang/18/include -idirafter /usr/local/include
>       -idirafter /usr/include -Wno-compare-distinct-pointer-types -DENABLE_ATOMICS_TESTS -O2 --target=bpf
>       -c progs/pyperf180.c -mcpu=v3 -o /home/yhs/work/bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/pyperf180.bpf.o
>     1.      <eof> parser at end of file
>     2.      Code generation
>     ...
> 
> The compilation failure only happens to cpu=v2 and cpu=v3. cpu=v4 is okay
> since cpu=v4 supports 32-bit branch target offset.
> 
> The above failure is due to upstream llvm patch [1] where some inlining behavior
> are changed in llvm18.
> 
> To workaround the issue, previously all 180 loop iterations are fully unrolled.
> Now, the fully unrolling count is changed to 90 for llvm18 and later. This reduced
> some otherwise long branch target distance, and fixed the compilation failure.
> 
>   [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1a2e77cf9e11dbf56b5720c607313a566eebb16e
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>

Can confirm, the issue is present on clang main w/o this patch and
disappears after this patch.

Yonghong, is there a way to keep original UNROLL_COUNT if cpuv4 is used?

Tested-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux