On 7/10/22 11:01 PM, Hao Luo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 5:51 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/10/22 5:26 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
[...]
BTW, CI also reported the test failure.
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/3284
For example, with gcc built kernel,
https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/7272407890?check_suite_focus=true
The error:
get_cgroup_vmscan_delay:PASS:cgroup_id 0 nsec
get_cgroup_vmscan_delay:PASS:vmscan_reading 0 nsec
check_vmscan_stats:FAIL:child1_vmscan unexpected child1_vmscan:
actual 28390910 != expected 28390909
check_vmscan_stats:FAIL:child2_vmscan unexpected child2_vmscan:
actual 0 != expected -2
check_vmscan_stats:PASS:test_vmscan 0 nsec
check_vmscan_stats:PASS:root_vmscan 0 nsec
Yonghong,
I noticed that the test only failed on test_progs-no_alu32, not
test_progs. test_progs passed. I believe Yosry and I have only tested
In my case, both test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32 failed the test.
I think the reason for the failure is the same.
on test_progs. I tried building and running the no_alu32 version, but
so far, not able to run test_progs-no_alu32. Whenever I ran
test_progs-no_alu32, it exits without any message. Do you have any
clue what could be wrong?
It works fine in my environment. test_progs should be very similar to
test_progs-no_alu32. The only difference is bpf programs with different
insn set. Some tests may not run with test_progs-no_alu32, e.g., newer
atomic insn tests.
I have no idea why test_progs-no_alu32 won't work for you, I guess you
may need to debug it a little bit.
[...]
