From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 D584923A9AD; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 15:21:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767367270; cv=none; b=JlJpvoOUju6Nq9BxhHR8Hsi/+7v2HP+g5M+1W8BfDExV7FuAfu0ixVermvg2a68tlYIqdoRxtBh+EeaPJs2CxFq2FkeETxTWCTo4uTV8e0vtAGTN8V/9LVtWvl0qbWsEPZRWQu0CzGUmKPdRcogtiq6EBARe7QHWYTNV/x9K4NY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767367270; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pMXCQW12wPyvlfidixRLtglysi2HvG9+Wl6UmWXVbTA=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=bDQrIFKZtisMA11HyAuzQDFTnrsG6ZfzqWjfEYnHxBws1PrTooJhHp/ZjGpdUN89YOS3FkcNe8TEXlG+uwATLZFYM+O+nQFGFmiNYOx0mc4rw+wtCxscP2zFgr1Ty110foommqpz2Zy4WUBAKBF4DnaYkcWGTd8o7oEkHNmK5+I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZDb6Smp5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ZDb6Smp5" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B27EDC116B1; Fri, 2 Jan 2026 15:21:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1767367270; bh=pMXCQW12wPyvlfidixRLtglysi2HvG9+Wl6UmWXVbTA=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:From; b=ZDb6Smp5r1qwHf5O207uvXnwSlFpojpN3A/HXVReK3KkTSOxHLxMEQ/j2WMrJuMiy n+Zei+fXQ07vbkh2w7l57kLDGDVkAeR46Dxkc61yPQ1a/8ihN8C76oCCwF9x8HepVZ lrScZ1Ro6BJO/3boeJ3Zfpg0U/krYZ3Y4R78M7TaEBgQoRPoNVQcDjjKE7TfMC5RXj MQxgeoAB5KWO0fw+Ml+h6bQJYmD+GlqbxArV4vrHdv06E5tkyYP5JCeiEUfinYrtBF weDu5tMwWpipFifeMpWkwFz63wZSAevA5pxIRchyKKGVaenyfmrg2KpYDV+FLjYZUb c8qh6H96DdwnA== Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7827669722571794812==" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <45f1e1978b7dc28e522dcc0a72954d892b37a85220749bd027c7395edb01d991@mail.kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20260102150032.53106-2-leon.hwang@linux.dev> References: <20260102150032.53106-2-leon.hwang@linux.dev> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: tailcall: Introduce bpf_arch_tail_call_prologue_offset From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org To: leon.hwang@linux.dev,bpf@vger.kernel.org Cc: ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,martin.lau@linux.dev,eddyz87@gmail.com,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,john.fastabend@gmail.com,kpsingh@kernel.org,sdf@fomichev.me,haoluo@google.com,jolsa@kernel.org,puranjay@kernel.org,xukuohai@huaweicloud.com,catalin.marinas@arm.com,will@kernel.org,davem@davemloft.net,dsahern@kernel.org,tglx@linutronix.de,mingo@redhat.com,bp@alien8.de,dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,x86@kernel.org,hpa@zytor.com,akpm@linux-foundation.org,linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,netdev@vger.kernel.org,kernel-patches-bot@fb.com,leon.hwang@linux.dev,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,clm@meta.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 15:21:09 +0000 (UTC) --===============7827669722571794812== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c > index 1eeb31c5b317..beedd1281c22 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/arraymap.c > @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ static struct bpf_map *array_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr) > array_size += (u64) max_entries * elem_size; > } > } > + if (attr->map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY && bpf_arch_tail_call_prologue_offset()) > + /* Store tailcall targets */ > + array_size += (u64) max_entries * sizeof(void *); Should array_map_mem_usage() also account for this additional space? Currently array_map_mem_usage() handles special cases for percpu arrays and mmapable arrays, but has no corresponding check for PROG_ARRAY maps when bpf_arch_tail_call_prologue_offset() is non-zero. This would cause the reported memory usage to be lower than the actual allocation when an architecture implements this function (e.g., x86_64 and arm64 in the subsequent patches of this series). [ ... ] --- AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/20660615603 --===============7827669722571794812==--