On 06/16/2015 08:46 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 6/15/15 11:34 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> On 06/16/2015 08:25 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On 6/15/15 11:06 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote: >>>>> with the above 'fix' the trace.patch is now passing. >>>> It still crashes for me with the original test program >>>> >>>> [ 145.908013] [<ffffffff810d1da1>] ? __rcu_reclaim+0x101/0x3d0 >>>> [ 145.908013] [<ffffffff810d1ca0>] ? rcu_barrier_func+0x250/0x250 >>>> [ 145.908013] [<ffffffff810abc03>] ? >>>> trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xf3/0x240 >>>> [ 145.908013] [<ffffffff810d9afa>] rcu_do_batch+0x2ea/0x6b0 >>> >>> yes. full bpf test still crashes. >>> That's why I said trace.patch is passing ;) >>> There is something else in there. One 'fix' at a time. >> >> Ah, sorry, I read it is working now :) Anyway, I'll keep looking >> as well. >> >> Yesterday I wrote a small torture program for the map >> implementation. Just to rule out memory corruption there. >> Are you interested in it? If yes I could clean it a bit. > > of course! > We already have samples/bpf/test_maps.c that stresses map > access from user space and lib/test_bpf.c that stress JIT > and interpreter from the kernel. > Looking at your test, I think it doesn't buy as much doing it > from the kernel?
No, it doesn't really buy you anything compared to test_maps.c. I was just ignored to the fact that test_maps.c exists. My goal was to reduce the problem to a smallest unit and therefore tried to do it inside the kernel without any additional layers. > If so, I think would be great to add it to test_maps.c > > Will read it more carefully tomorrow. No need, test_maps.c is far better. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
