On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:48:03PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 08:17:05AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 08:39:33PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:38:50PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:19:52PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:52:18PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > Does this revert re-introduce the BPF selftest failure that was 
> > > > > > fixed in
> > > > > > 2019? The test 
> > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/stacktrace_map_raw_tp.c
> > > > > > still exists in the kernel tree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have the same question.  And note there may be subtle differences
> > > > > between the frame pointer and ORC unwinders.  The testcase would need 
> > > > > to
> > > > > pass for both.
> > > > 
> > > > as I wrote in the other email that test does not check ips directly,
> > > > it just compare stacks taken from bpf_get_stackid and bpf_get_stack
> > > > helpers.. so it passes for both orc and frame pointer unwinder
> > > 
> > > Ok.  So the original fix wasn't actually a fix at all?  It would be good
> > > to understand that and mention it in the commit log.  Otherwise it's not
> > > clear why it's ok to revert a fix with no real explanation.
> > 
> > I think it was a fix when it was pushed 6 years ago, but some
> > unwind change along that time made it redundant, I'll try to
> > find what the change was
> 
> hum I can't tell what changed since v5.2 (kernel version when [1] landed)
> that reverted the behaviour which the [1] commit was fixing
> 
> I did the test for both orc and framepointer unwind with and without the
> fix (revert of [1]) and except for the initial entry it does not seem to
> change the rest of the unwind ... though I'd expect orc unwind to have
> more entries
> 
> please check results below
> 
> any idea? thanks,
> jirka

The "missing" ORC entries are probably fine, they're likely caused by
the compiler generating more tail calls with FP disabled.

-- 
Josh

Reply via email to