On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 6:50 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Can't repro this even with 2 parallel kernel builds and running this test in VM in a loop. I can bump waiting time a little bit or can drop that check, because it's inherently non-deterministic... > > The #64 tcp_rtt also started to fail sporadically. > But I wonder whether it's leftover from 24. shrug. Can you please paste log from #64 failure?
