From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A585C19425 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C34023B6B for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:50:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727968AbgLIRty (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:49:54 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:49110 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727894AbgLIRtm (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:49:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:49:10 -0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1607536141; bh=g9dGx1sfBfj6LVoySFl/0KfqVoAZqY8Q4b/cyCZSIx4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ppuqGLDhnRrGAnmbGGI2AG/lvtJGkbjufRuYKHBGvjxIaG2hd3our5/6dGRLekd1G skzEZUQefTTNnjS9k6tXOXIJMpLPUaAXXU1eVIStjkAiSbpzNOGzhEXAc6zWkSTMGf d1o5+/O1Yqpe7voMSP1rMssYqg/4tNwjD9bD7ttsZNPjHFt4VAkVMWL0c1J4ndDRr8 nFA/pt9xsGWU9uqSUcllIwWOxWDzDsXtDVaI4QNhw0XbkHZUUnPqmbw3wE5/ZMmNG4 KT88uGASSuAFDQvx3GsU5aYB1WiNbhEuXO/wZwRP1LppwX5CvAjCEqDwRqG0BGRQp+ QoeAhV/wJbMDg== From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ravi Bangoria Cc: Thomas Richter , Kajol Jain , jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, irogers@google.com, rbernon@codeweavers.com, maddy@linux.ibm.com, atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc Message-ID: <20201209174910.GC185686@kernel.org> References: <20201104082954.57338-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com> <20201119135022.36340-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> <4a2908ca-6b75-c688-ec3b-7f37783f08cc@linux.ibm.com> <20201207163524.GF125383@kernel.org> <763d4593-d581-0971-338c-b811925be45b@linux.ibm.com> <29a77348-2ab7-1235-3fcf-c505dab1f1a1@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <29a77348-2ab7-1235-3fcf-c505dab1f1a1@linux.ibm.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > On 12/8/20 8:13 PM, Thomas Richter wrote: > > On 12/7/20 5:35 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:04:53PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > > > > On 11/19/20 7:20 PM, Kajol Jain wrote: > > > > > Commit ed21d6d7c48e6e ("perf tests: Add test for PE binary format support") > > > > > adds a WINDOWS EXE file named tests/pe-file.exe, which is > > > > > examined by the test case 'PE file support'. As powerpc doesn't support > > > > > it, we are skipping this test. > > > > > Result in power9 platform before this patach: > > > > > [command]# ./perf test -F 68 > > > > > 68: PE file support : Failed! > > > > > Result in power9 platform after this patch: > > > > > [command]# ./perf test -F 68 > > > > > 68: PE file support : Skip > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain > > > > Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria > > > But why is it failing? I.e. what is that > > > perf test -v -F 68 > > > outputs? > > > Using 'perf report' on a perf.data file containing samples in such > > > binaries, collected on x86 should work on whatever workstation a > > > developer uses. > > > Say, on a MacBook aarch64 one can look at a perf.data file collected on > > > a x86_64 system where Wine running a PE binary was present. > > What is the distro you are using? > > I observed the same issue on s390 but this was fixed for fedora33 somehow. > > The error just went away after a dnf update.... > > [root@m35lp76 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release > > Fedora release 33 (Thirty Three) > > [root@m35lp76 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > > 68: PE file support : Ok > > [root@m35lp76 perf]# > > However on my fedora32 machine it still fails: > > [root@t35lp46 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release > > Fedora release 32 (Thirty Two) > > [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > > 68: PE file support : FAILED! > > [root@t35lp46 perf]# > > > > Note that I am running the same kernel on both machines: linux 5.10.0rc7 downloaded > > this morning. > > > > Ok that's interesting. I don't see that on powerpc. > > Fedora 32 with 5.10.0-rc2+ kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > Fedora 33 with 5.10.0-rc3 kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > Ubuntu 18.04.5 with 4.15.0-126-generic kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:41 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > > I assumed bfd is not capable to parse PE files on powerpc. Though, > I didn't check it in more detail. I'll look into it tomorrow. Humm, so this is something related to installation? I.e. that pe-file.exe isn't being found... It first assumes that the developers are in the tools/perf/ directory, can you please add the patch below and see if it helps? Without it and without having actually installed perf (for instance with 'make -C tools/perf install' I get: [acme@five perf]$ perf test -F 68 68: PE file support : FAILED! [acme@five perf]$ [acme@five perf]$ perf test -F -v 68 Couldn't bump rlimit(MEMLOCK), failures may take place when creating BPF maps, etc 68: PE file support : --- start --- FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id ---- end ---- PE file support: FAILED! [acme@five perf]$ If I go to tools/perf: [acme@five perf]$ perf test 68 68: PE file support : Ok [acme@five perf]$ With the patch below it works both at the top level dir and at tools/perf/ on a system without a perf installation containing these PE files. We have this in tools/perf/Makefile.perf: install-tests: all install-gtk $(call QUIET_INSTALL, tests) \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/attr.py '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/pe-file.exe* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ <--------------------------------------------- $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/attr/* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/shell/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/shell/lib/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib' install-bin: install-tools install-tests install-traceevent-plugins - Arnaldo diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c index 58b90c42eb38c1b9..a380d31b645b58dd 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ int test__pe_file_parsing(struct test *test __maybe_unused, if (!lstat("./tests", &st)) return run_dir("./tests"); + if (!lstat("./tools/perf/tests", &st)) + return run_dir("./tools/perf/tests"); + /* Then installed path. */ snprintf(path_dir, PATH_MAX, "%s/tests", get_argv_exec_path());