On 15 December 2016 at 10:34, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > Em Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 03:29:18PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: >> Em Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:50:22PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: >> > Em Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:43:39PM -0800, Joe Stringer escreveu: >> > > Now that libbpf under tools/lib/bpf/* is synced with the version from >> > > samples/bpf, we can get rid most of the libbpf library here. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <j...@ovn.org> >> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@fb.com> >> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net> >> > > Cc: Wang Nan <wangn...@huawei.com> >> > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161209024620.31660-6-...@ovn.org >> > > [ Use -I$(srctree)/tools/lib/ to support out of source code tree builds, >> > > as noticed by Wang Nan ] >> >> So, the above comment no longer applied to this adjusted patch from you, >> as you removed one hunk too much, that, after applied, gets samples/bpf/ >> to build successfully: >> >> diff --git a/samples/bpf/Makefile b/samples/bpf/Makefile >> index add514e2984a..81b0ef2f7994 100644 >> --- a/samples/bpf/Makefile >> +++ b/samples/bpf/Makefile >> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ always += lwt_len_hist_kern.o >> always += xdp_tx_iptunnel_kern.o >> >> HOSTCFLAGS += -I$(objtree)/usr/include >> +HOSTCFLAGS += -I$(srctree)/tools/lib/ >> HOSTCFLAGS += -I$(srctree)/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ >> >> HOSTCFLAGS_bpf_load.o += -I$(objtree)/usr/include -Wno-unused-variable >> >> --------------------- >> >> I added it, continuing... > > But then, when I tried to run offwaketime with it, it fails: > > [root@jouet bpf]# ./offwaketime ls > bpf_load_program() err=22 > BPF_LDX uses reserved fields > bpf_load_program() err=22 > BPF_LDX uses reserved fields > [root@jouet bpf]# > > If I remove this patch and try again, it works: > > [root@jouet bpf]# ./offwaketime | head -4 > swapper/1;start_secondary;cpu_startup_entry;schedule_preempt_disabled;schedule;__schedule;-;---;; > 46 > chrome;return_from_SYSCALL_64;do_syscall_64;exit_to_usermode_loop;schedule;__schedule;-;try_to_wake_up;do_futex;sys_futex;do_syscall_64;return_from_SYSCALL_64;;Chrome_ChildIOT > 1 > firefox;entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath;sys_poll;do_sys_poll;poll_schedule_timeout;schedule_hrtimeout_range;schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock;schedule;__schedule;-;try_to_wake_up;pollwake;__wake_up_common;__wake_up_sync_key;pipe_write;__vfs_write;vfs_write;sys_write;entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath;;Timer > 3 > dockerd-current;entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath;sys_select;core_sys_select;do_select;poll_schedule_timeout;schedule_hrtimeout_range;schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock;schedule;__schedule;-;try_to_wake_up;futex_wake;do_futex;sys_futex;entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath;;dockerd-current > 2 > [root@jouet bpf]# > > > So, I'm stopping here so that I can push what I have to Ingo, then I'll get > back to this, hopefully by then you beat me and I have just to retest 8-)
OK, thanks for the report. Looks like there was another difference between the two libbpfs - one used total program size for its load_program API; the actual kernel API uses instruction count. This incremental should do the trick: https://github.com/joestringer/linux/commit/6ff7726f20077bed66fb725f5189c13690154b6a
