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 <sk...@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.
Thanks,
Saket
