From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout02.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout02.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C34470E92; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 03:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.217 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784777496; cv=none; b=j7xpejZQ/OgKuDmT+vOrnRWb0iPZRq7SJmXAhn4iwTOy/pZr7ce04Mf/MYJ4+qOyKoECuKAQyLdAkRyyHJChgVmbA9Y5f2p4dFE8K3gphL7EJQS0tDlReNh50i5zKcLqBdOV0yMvlpT58o4mTpFj8PiGWs/uH2hUoe40cONFXF0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784777496; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qmvWcj+5uBFibt0yErcgzAeyOgdcyNGGb3ZtXplZdTw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ZHuBhKi66mWGhWj8JvKBARPLpaI7rXsXlOa+V7+4a9yO/D07N/6tFWFKcZJlBAUzJUkSqp+NMP8SGTuGNWR3Ldz2IT+UacSrJAuhsbohP6oetK7C8eaftpFMLmfzXm3YP1SGY69f4TXecyak9m1t7kH/+PQJyzOzA1uQxIvrDiI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=5UNlbpQb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.217 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="5UNlbpQb" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=IT0yY9Bxei0oo4EbXvT7H7M8cLXUJVI6426bDPUCmNo=; b=5UNlbpQbn7cdavhtse20oO5491oP8PfnGxXCtjRfUEouLDQRy2/yc2MlHiWsRKINwyhp7dHU7 HZLOku2z9m2TJU/axRLhMxdEyirdHL6dYgTgWL4jHzIEnXDiygMJ8NVXPSUIKoG9x/4OWHjN1Kr 6yO2CFssDTZEKiElykaRpyc= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.197]) by canpmsgout02.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4h5Gcy30Mvzcb4c; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:21:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.221]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BE2740579; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:31:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.110.68] (10.67.110.68) by kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.36; Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:31:24 +0800 Message-ID: <0c95b1bc-9fd3-48c6-a44e-cd42e38eede1@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:31:23 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: Test jited inline of bpf_get_smp_processor_id() for RISC-V Content-Language: en-US To: Tiezhu Yang , Andrii Nakryiko , Eduard Zingerman , Ihor Solodrai , =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= , Puranjay Mohan CC: , References: <20260722070127.9679-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> From: Pu Lehui In-Reply-To: <20260722070127.9679-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems100001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.238) To kwepemf100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.221) On 2026/7/22 15:01, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > Add the JITed inline instruction of bpf_get_smp_processor_id() for RISC-V > to pass the test case. > > On RISC-V, the 'cpu' field of 'struct thread_info' resides at offset 0x20, > BPF_REG_0 maps to the a5 register, and the thread pointer (tp) is used as > the base address. Therefore, the JIT compiler emits "lw a5, 0x20(tp)" to > optimize this helper call. > > Tested on a RISC-V virtual machine. > > Before: > $ sudo ./test_progs -t verifier_jit_inline > #610/1 verifier_jit_inline/inline_bpf_get_current_task:OK > #610/2 verifier_jit_inline/inline_bpf_get_smp_processor_id:SKIP > #610 verifier_jit_inline:OK (SKIP: 1/2) > Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 1 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > After: > $ sudo ./test_progs -t verifier_jit_inline > #610/1 verifier_jit_inline/inline_bpf_get_current_task:OK > #610/2 verifier_jit_inline/inline_bpf_get_smp_processor_id:OK > #610 verifier_jit_inline:OK > Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c > index 02e562f56f9d..c696baa5364b 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test2") > __success __retval(0) > __arch_loongarch > __jited(" ld.wu $a5, $tp, 16") > +__arch_riscv64 > +__jited(" lw a5, 0x20(tp)") > int inline_bpf_get_smp_processor_id(void) > { > bpf_get_smp_processor_id(); Hi Tiezhu, There are many places in selftest can be add __arch_riscv64 tag, I think we can enable them witch one patch.