Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-16 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:43:18 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > Correct. My Ack is based on the current way things are done upstream. > > It was just that linux-rt showed the issue, where the code was not as > > robust as it should have been. To me this was a correctness issue, not > > an issue

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-13 Thread patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Hello: This patch was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master) by Andrii Nakryiko : On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:42:19 +0200 you wrote: > linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support > for lazy preemption")) that adds an extra member to struct trace_entry. > This causes the

Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-13 Thread Andrii Nakryiko
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 7:00 AM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:01:34 +0200 > Artem Savkov wrote: > > > > But looking at [0] and briefly reading some of the discussions you, > > > Steven, had. I'm just wondering if it would be best to avoid > > > increasing struct trace_entry

Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-13 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:01:34 +0200 Artem Savkov wrote: > > But looking at [0] and briefly reading some of the discussions you, > > Steven, had. I'm just wondering if it would be best to avoid > > increasing struct trace_entry altogether? It seems like preempt_count > > is actually a 4-bit field

Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-13 Thread Artem Savkov
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:32:51PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:43 AM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:45:50 +0200 > > Artem Savkov wrote: > > > > > linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support > > > for lazy

[PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-12 Thread Artem Savkov
linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support for lazy preemption")) that adds an extra member to struct trace_entry. This causes the offset of args field in struct trace_event_raw_sys_enter be different from the one in struct syscall_trace_enter: struct

Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-12 Thread Rod Webster
For the novice with the RT kernel, Could somebody tell me what kernel this bug was first introduced in and what kernel we need to install to get the fix? This could be the issue we have been experiencing in the Linuxcnc community with excessive RT network latency (mostly with realtek NIC's). I

Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-12 Thread Andrii Nakryiko
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:43 AM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:45:50 +0200 > Artem Savkov wrote: > > > linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support > > for lazy preemption")) that adds an extra member to struct trace_entry. > > This causes the offset

Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-12 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:45:50 +0200 Artem Savkov wrote: > linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support > for lazy preemption")) that adds an extra member to struct trace_entry. > This causes the offset of args field in struct trace_event_raw_sys_enter > be different

[RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: change syscall_nr type to int in struct syscall_tp_t

2023-10-12 Thread Artem Savkov
linux-rt-devel tree contains a patch (b1773eac3f29c ("sched: Add support for lazy preemption")) that adds an extra member to struct trace_entry. This causes the offset of args field in struct trace_event_raw_sys_enter be different from the one in struct syscall_trace_enter: struct