On Sat, 2025-03-01 at 16:09 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 8:40 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > Two comparisons are made: > > - dfa-opts vs dfa-opts-no-rm (small negative impact, except two > > sched_ext programs that hit 1M instructions limit; positive impact > > would have indicated a bug); > > Let's figure out what is causing rusty_init[_task] > to explode. > And proceed with this set in parallel. The regression for rusty_init was caused by incorrect mark of "r0" as used because of "may_goto" instruction. This is fixed by: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250305085436.2731464-1-eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx/ > > - dfa-opts vs dfa-opts-no-rm-sl (big negative impact). > > I don't read it as a big negative. > cls_redirect and balancer_ingress need to be understood, > but nothing exploded to hit 1M insns, > so hopefully bare minimum stack tracking would do the trick. > > So in terms of priorities, let's land this set, then > figure out rusty_init, > figure out read32 vs 64 for zext, > at that time we may land -no-rm. > Then stack tracking.
