On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 11:19 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > Yonghong, I reproduced the failure using vmtest.sh now. Yosry and I are debugging it. Once we have any result, we will report back. Thanks for taking a look. > > > >>> > > [...]
