On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 09:01, Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2020-11-26 07:44, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > What other configures I am missing?
> >
> > BTW, I cherry-picked the following pick from bpf tree in this experiment.
> > commit e7f4a5919bf66e530e08ff352d9b78ed89574e6b (HEAD -> xsk)
> > Author: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon Nov 23 18:56:00 2020 +0100
> >
> > net, xsk: Avoid taking multiple skbuff references
> >
>
> Hmm, I'm getting an oops, unless I cherry-pick:
>
> 36ccdf85829a ("net, xsk: Avoid taking multiple skbuff references")
>
> *AND*
>
> 537cf4e3cc2f ("xsk: Fix umem cleanup bug at socket destruct")
>
> from bpf/master.
>
Same as Bjorn's findings ^^^, additionally applying the second patch
537cf4e3cc2f [PASS] all tests for me
PREREQUISITES: [ PASS ]
SKB NOPOLL: [ PASS ]
SKB POLL: [ PASS ]
DRV NOPOLL: [ PASS ]
DRV POLL: [ PASS ]
SKB SOCKET TEARDOWN: [ PASS ]
DRV SOCKET TEARDOWN: [ PASS ]
SKB BIDIRECTIONAL SOCKETS: [ PASS ]
DRV BIDIRECTIONAL SOCKETS: [ PASS ]
With the first patch alone, as soon as we enter DRV/Native NOPOLL mode
kernel panics, whereas in your case NOPOLL tests were falling with
packets being *lost* as per seqnum mismatch.
Can you please test this out with both patches and let us know?
> Can I just run test_xsk.sh at tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ directory?
> This will be easier than the above for bpf developers. If it does not
> work, I would like to recommend to make it work.
>
yes test_xsk.shis self contained, will update the instructions in there with v4.
Thanks,
/Weqaar
>
> Björn
