Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] perf parse-events: Remove BPF event support

[Manu Bretelle <chantr4@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 05:39:25PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 03:48:56PM -0700, Manu Bretelle escreveu:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 06:08:33PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > I wonder how to improve the current situation to detect these kinds of
> > > problems in the future, i.e. how to notice that some file needed by some
> > > Makefile, etc got removed or that some feature test fails because some
> > > change in the test .c files makes them fail and thus activates fallbacks
> > > like the one above :-\
>  
> > I think it is tricky. Specifically to this situation, some CI could try to build
> > the different combinaison of bpftool and check the features through the build
> > `bpftool --version`.
> 
> Right, if the right packages are installed, we expect to get some
> bpftool build output, if that changes after some patch, flag it.
> 
> Does bpftool have something like:
> 
> ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ perf version --build-options
> perf version 6.6.rc1.ga8dd62d05e56
>                  dwarf: [ on  ]  # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
>     dwarf_getlocations: [ on  ]  # HAVE_DWARF_GETLOCATIONS_SUPPORT
>          syscall_table: [ on  ]  # HAVE_SYSCALL_TABLE_SUPPORT
>                 libbfd: [ OFF ]  # HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT
>             debuginfod: [ on  ]  # HAVE_DEBUGINFOD_SUPPORT
>                 libelf: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBELF_SUPPORT
>                libnuma: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> numa_num_possible_cpus: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
>                libperl: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBPERL_SUPPORT
>              libpython: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBPYTHON_SUPPORT
>               libslang: [ on  ]  # HAVE_SLANG_SUPPORT
>              libcrypto: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBCRYPTO_SUPPORT
>              libunwind: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBUNWIND_SUPPORT
>     libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on  ]  # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
>                   zlib: [ on  ]  # HAVE_ZLIB_SUPPORT
>                   lzma: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LZMA_SUPPORT
>              get_cpuid: [ on  ]  # HAVE_AUXTRACE_SUPPORT
>                    bpf: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>                    aio: [ on  ]  # HAVE_AIO_SUPPORT
>                   zstd: [ on  ]  # HAVE_ZSTD_SUPPORT
>                libpfm4: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBPFM
>          libtraceevent: [ on  ]  # HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT
>          bpf_skeletons: [ on  ]  # HAVE_BPF_SKEL
> ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
> 
> ?
> 

It has

    $ ./tools/bpf/bpftool/bpftool --version -j | jq .features
    {
      "libbfd": false,
      "llvm": true,
      "skeletons": true,
      "bootstrap": false
    }


Maybe Quentin knows of something else.

> > This is actually a test that I run internally to make sure our build has some
> > feature enabled.
> > This is actually tested by bpftool in the GH CI:
> > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yaml#L62
>  
> > As a matter of fact, it would not have been detected because that CI uses a
> > different Makefile.feature.
>  
> > Quentin and I were talking offline how we could improve bpftool CI at diff time.
> > This is an example where it would have helped :)
> > 
> > > I'll get this merged in my perf-tools-fixes-for-v6.6 that I'll submit
> > > tomorrow to Linus, thanks for reporting!
> > > 
> > > I'll add your:
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > And:
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 56b11a2126bf2f42 ("perf bpf: Remove support for embedding clang for compiling BPF events (-e foo.c)")
> > > 
> > > Ok?
>  
> > SGTM. Thanks for the quick turnaround.
>  
> > Reviewed-by: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@gmail.com>
> 
> You're welcome, thanks for the detailed report, the patch was just sent
> to Linus.
> 
> - Arnaldo