@wardenjohn : IIRC, you hit this problem a while back? If so, do you want to try @puranjaymohan 's patch?

@joe-lawrence

Right, I had faced this problem. It seems that I mentioned it in a comment area instead of raising a new issues.

This problem seem only happen under arm64

@puranjaymohan Would you share the discussion link as mention in your pr as [1]?

@wardenjohn : do you have a link for that discussion and did you ever resolve it (or apply something similar to the patch here)?

@joe-lawrence
Sorry, Joe. I don't have the link to that discussion. This is a discussion by mail. I judge this problem may happen only under aarch64, because from what I know, __patchable_function_entries is only effective in aarch64 and which can be ignore. and the upstream is not supported, that's why I did not raise an issue here...lol...

And yet, I still not have a good solution to it, and @puranjaymohan seems give me a hope to this problem. I am now starting to test this patch if can fix it :)

@wardenjohn : do you have a link for that discussion and did you ever resolve it (or apply something similar to the patch here)?

@joe-lawrence You can check the email I send you at Feb, 21, 2025.

@wardenjohn : do you have a link for that discussion and did you ever resolve it (or apply something similar to the patch here)?

@joe-lawrence You can check the email I send you at Feb, 21, 2025.

Ah ok, yes that was the bug report I was thinking of. Since it is over e-mail, there's nothing to link to in this PR, but if you are willing to give it a test drive on your Arm64 port and report back, that would be much appreciated, thanks!

@joe-lawrence Sure, I will give you a test report as soon as possible.

Since the master branch do not support Arm64, I may test on @puranjaymohan 's arm64 branch of PR [https://github.com//pull/1439] with this patch.

It that OK?

@joe-lawrence Do you need me copy the bug report and raise an new issuse here?

@puranjaymohan Would you share the discussion link as mention in your pr as [1]?

Here it is: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26256

@joe-lawrence Sure, I will give you a test report as soon as possible.

Since the master branch do not support Arm64, I may test on @puranjaymohan 's arm64 branch of PR [https://github.com/https://github.com//pull/1439] with this patch.

It that OK?

Sure that's fine. It's more of a sanity check for your own use (you'll know that the bug is fixed :)

@joe-lawrence Do you need me copy the bug report and raise an new issuse here?

No need to duplicate it, you can just follow up here. Thanks.

@joe-lawrence FYI,I tried a patch made changes fork.c and mmap.c, this patch successfully built in x86_64 and it seems looks well. However, I changed into this branch and tried to build it under aarch64, with the same patch, found the error:

create-diff-object: ERROR: fork.o: find_local_syms: 217: couldn't find matching fork.c local symbols in vmlinux symbol table
create-diff-object: ERROR: mmap.o: find_local_syms: 217: couldn't find matching mmap.c local symbols in vmlinux symbol table

cc @puranjaymohan

@wardenjohn Can you share the patch that you tested? and did you use this PR on top of the PR for the arm64 support?

@puranjaymohan quite strange.... I don't know what happened to my env. After I rebuild and reinstall your branch (I used your arm64 branch and patch the commit from pfe_ordering_fix). And I retried a patch just chaning meminfo_proc_show and seems good.

From 12221c683d399db241b5ce029e638cd24ab76788 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wardenjohn <zhangwarden@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:55:54 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] 1

---
 fs/proc/meminfo.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/meminfo.c b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
index 8ba9b1472390..2dbf507fa57d 100644
--- a/fs/proc/meminfo.c
+++ b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
        sreclaimable = global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B);
        sunreclaim = global_node_page_state_pages(NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B);

-       show_val_kb(m, "MemTotal:       ", i.totalram);
+       show_val_kb(m, "111adghfjad2MemTotal:       ", i.totalram);
        show_val_kb(m, "MemFree:        ", i.freeram);
        show_val_kb(m, "MemAvailable:   ", available);
        show_val_kb(m, "Buffers:        ", i.bufferram);
-- 
2.43.5

And I am sorry for answering late, for I am quite busy that days. :)

Since this patch is quite easy, I will try a more complex patch later. :)

I'll merge this now and if @wardenjohn has any further issues, we'll just open a new ticket. Thanks guys.