On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:29 AM Saket Kumar Bhaskar skb99@linux.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 03:21:42PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:29 PM Saket Kumar Bhaskar skb99@linux.ibm.com wrote:
@@ -60,9 +65,16 @@ static void test_arena_spin_lock_size(int size) return; }
skel = arena_spin_lock__open_and_load();if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "arena_spin_lock__open_and_load"))
skel = arena_spin_lock__open();if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "arena_spin_lock__open")) return;skel->rodata->nr_cpus = get_nprocs();...
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_arena_spin_lock.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_arena_spin_lock.h @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@ #define __arena __attribute__((address_space(1))) #endif
-extern unsigned long CONFIG_NR_CPUS __kconfig;
/*
- Typically, we'd just rely on the definition in vmlinux.h for qspinlock, but
- PowerPC overrides the definition to define lock->val as u32 instead of
@@ -494,7 +492,7 @@ static __always_inline int arena_spin_lock(arena_spinlock_t __arena *lock) { int val = 0;
if (CONFIG_NR_CPUS > 1024)
if (nr_cpus > 1024) return -EOPNOTSUPP;We cannot do this. It will make arena_spin_lock much harder to use. BPF CI doesn't run on powerpc anyway, but you can document that this test is disable by creating selftests/bpf/DENYLIST.powerpc.
Hi Alexie, Sorry, I did not get it. Can you please help me to understand why it makes arena_spin_lock harder to use.
because requiring user space to do skel->rodata->nr_cpus = get_nprocs() is a headache.