On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 8:48 PM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 8:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 8:05 PM Andrii Nakryiko > > <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When I was analysing and crafting the test I for some reason assumed I > > > > need to have a jump inside the state that won't trigger state > > > > checkpoint. But I think that's not necessary, just doing conditional > > > > jump and jumping back an instruction or two should do. With that yes, > > > > TEST_STATE_FREQ should be a better way to do this. > > > > > > Ah, ok, TEST_STATE_FREQ won't work. It triggers state checkpointing > > > both at conditional jump instruction and on its target, because target > > > is prune point. > > > > > > So I think this test has to be the way it is. > > > > I see. > > I was about to apply it, but then noticed: > > numamove_bpf-numamove_bpf.o |migrate_misplaced_page |success -> > > failure (!!)|-100.00 % > > > > veristat is not known for sporadic failures. > > Is this a real issue? > > No idea what this is, I don't have it in my local object files, will > need to regenerate them and check. libbpf: prog 'migrate_misplaced_page_exit': failed to find kernel BTF type ID of 'migrate_misplaced_page': -3 It fails also on bpf-next/master. I think CI compares with the last state before net/net-next merge, and now this tool (it's from libbpf-tools) fails to find migrate_misplaced_page kernel function, apparently. So veristat itself doesn't have sporadic failures, but our CI setup is not 100% reliable, it seems.
