Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] bpf: abstract away entire bpf_link clean up procedure

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

 



On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:21:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> Instead of requiring users to do three steps for cleaning up bpf_link, its
> anon_inode file, and unused fd, abstract that away into bpf_link_cleanup()
> helper. bpf_link_defunct() is removed, as it shouldn't be needed as an
> individual operation anymore.
> 
> v1->v2:
> - keep bpf_link_cleanup() static for now (Daniel).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>

Applied.

But noticed that the test is now sporadically failing:
./test_progs -n 24
test_link_pinning:PASS:skel_open 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_attach 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_pin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:stat_link 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check3 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_open 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_unpin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check4 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:FAIL:link_attached got to iteration #10000
#24/1 pin_raw_tp:FAIL
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_attach 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_pin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path1 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:stat_link 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check3 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_open 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:pin_path2 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:link_unpin 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:PASS:res_check4 0 nsec
test_link_pinning_subtest:FAIL:link_attached got to iteration #10000
#24/2 pin_tp_btf:FAIL
#24 link_pinning:FAIL
Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 3 FAILED

it's failing more often than passing, actually.

The #64 tcp_rtt also started to fail sporadically.
But I wonder whether it's leftover from 24. shrug.



[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