From: 赵佳炜 <phoenix500526@163.com>
To: "Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] selftests/bpf: Force -O2 for USDT selftests to cover SIB handling logic
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 17:47:36 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <393dae7e.9b04.1987ec77091.Coremail.phoenix500526@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <058d4d74-23ff-444b-a773-9d45204900f2@linux.dev>
OK, I’ve already added an usdt_o2 test and passed it.
At 2025-08-06 03:42:22, "Yonghong Song" <yonghong.song@linux.dev> wrote:
>
>
>On 8/2/25 1:48 AM, Jiawei Zhao wrote:
>> When using GCC on x86-64 to compile an usdt prog with -O1 or higher
>> optimization, the compiler will generate SIB addressing mode for global
>> array and PC-relative addressing mode for global variable,
>> e.g. "1@-96(%rbp,%rax,8)" and "-1@4+t1(%rip)".
>>
>> In this patch:
>> - force -O2 optimization for usdt.test.o to generate SIB addressing usdt
>> argument spec.
>> - change the global variable t1 to a local variable, to avoid compiler
>> generating PC-relative addressing mode for it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhao <phoenix500526@163.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 8 ++++++++
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> index 910d8d6402ef..4b77d06d5c42 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile
>> @@ -759,6 +759,14 @@ TRUNNER_BPF_BUILD_RULE := $$(error no BPF objects should be built)
>> TRUNNER_BPF_CFLAGS :=
>> $(eval $(call DEFINE_TEST_RUNNER,test_maps))
>>
>> +# Force usdt.c to use -O2 optimization to generate SIB addressing
>> +# Only apply on x86 architecture where SIB addressing is relevant
>> +ifeq ($(ARCH), x86)
>> +$(OUTPUT)/usdt.test.o: CFLAGS:=$(subst O0,O2,$(CFLAGS))
>> +$(OUTPUT)/cpuv4/usdt.test.o: CFLAGS:=$(subst O0,O2,$(CFLAGS))
>> +$(OUTPUT)/no_alu32/usdt.test.o: CFLAGS:=$(subst O0,O2,$(CFLAGS))
>> +endif
>
>This is no good. You should not change from -O0 to -O2. The existing usdt.c
>test should be kept. I assume at -O0 level, the compiler probably
>won't generate SIB pattern.
>
>You could add another usdt test e.g. usdt_o2.c and force
>usdt_o2 is compiled with -O2 optimizations and in usdt_o2 focusing on
>SIB probe.
>
>> +
>> # Define test_verifier test runner.
>> # It is much simpler than test_maps/test_progs and sufficiently different from
>> # them (e.g., test.h is using completely pattern), that it's worth just
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
>> index 495d66414b57..86f354d25aef 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/usdt.c
>> @@ -14,10 +14,15 @@ static volatile int idx = 2;
>> static volatile __u64 bla = 0xFEDCBA9876543210ULL;
>> static volatile short nums[] = {-1, -2, -3, -4};
>>
>> -static volatile struct {
>> - int x;
>> - signed char y;
>> -} t1 = { 1, -127 };
>> +/*
>> + * TODO: At O2 optimization level, t1's USDT argument spec becomes -1@4+t1(%rip).
>> + * Since libbpf doesn't support RIP addressing mode yet, this causes "unrecognized register" errors.
>> + * This test will be re-enabled once libbpf supports RIP addressing mode.
>> + */
>> +// static volatile struct {
>> +// int x;
>> +// signed char y;
>> +// } t1 = { 1, -127 };
>>
>
>[...]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-06 9:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-02 8:48 [PATCH v6 0/2] libbpf: fix USDT SIB argument handling causing unrecognized register error Jiawei Zhao
2025-08-02 8:48 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] " Jiawei Zhao
2025-08-04 10:23 ` Jiri Olsa
2025-08-05 4:15 ` 赵佳炜
2025-08-02 8:48 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] selftests/bpf: Force -O2 for USDT selftests to cover SIB handling logic Jiawei Zhao
2025-08-05 19:42 ` Yonghong Song
2025-08-06 9:47 ` 赵佳炜 [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=393dae7e.9b04.1987ec77091.Coremail.phoenix500526@163.com \
--to=phoenix500526@163.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®