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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0619C433EF for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:18:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345517AbiARJSg (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2022 04:18:36 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41302 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237329AbiARJSf (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2022 04:18:35 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com (mail-ed1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::534]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BECDC061574 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:18:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id cx27so3118858edb.1 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:18:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=epXjxVZYGdrS5V2vncnZJ3QtAgAqtwFKvMdQBktjbpw=; b=IFjPIDyeHD1pa5vazociaIVltQeXFZP1IdZTMMldhbplf7rS2ghHX6lhePpdxZDlN4 pyD/vK623ixNxbD156KLjuu+xovW29aHl7KMyPjoM8UHmrx0T7gaExFrg5dtNLneIk05 8lHTr3rAmRDP7a2x25z+hqUWZb4eJTe1/KLbmMqJCuvy5aEcVQaoFB9Y/IbA/Cl7yQu5 BkkBu3jJR9BBK5r3tgF2Me27nwdmkXjKyBULFKE08+siXHIPY9zyLt/FdMe23siMG10V 7HfCoKachHeLruBO0zJHVKKgNXN+sGZ/jOnJqWyjKFs2zwicoBfakSbE6GN7QxVFweur WZag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=epXjxVZYGdrS5V2vncnZJ3QtAgAqtwFKvMdQBktjbpw=; b=3s4yyxv8GCX6xUv8UUs6H39Tj3OFsSAzrR/VYE87nUf+SgLd7TKZGr9V0WVxbBkKo2 vAJV+/1CgP4Txuf/ziVx5hdO2wLQkOhbyVE79/3kjLUpY+Rv+XcZLWg2QPl1hcJsEFWg 8Kaf2RycMKPiJDn/KYe49hwvfjLL/Ek4YS4FgdtSLWJ9gsA2Ap53Gh7simGyiLoAgNxV XimmpuR3QKHUJ/PefR94sPhyHXx2KKGQiU+Dmg2TYqJbIxctYkfQK2SyPECvVvH31YB2 ZAQpeqozKc+bEEtCkMbXghmtSlwPEvY2h5l5jof/fXQ/vCkAU+5N5eT0c8R7Iod7rmgb bX/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nnOyB4CNfbmF8v69ooZUABUFeDscKrWaWLP3v4C6WXehPS6c5 9K1uAR1pGaIPIT1Bqk7Sr8BMJOx/69mZOLROCyc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdwWCxEjIeT5KJlR/Ba2GZ8dPe4vxd5ULvLy5WwNe9MrQCFdDTOTcEXmSEqqi1EyMCLYF1kA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:158:: with SMTP id s24mr25490055edu.144.1642497513890; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:18:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from leoy-ThinkPad-X240s ([104.245.96.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w22sm3411723eji.87.2022.01.18.01.18.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 18 Jan 2022 01:18:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:18:27 +0800 From: Leo Yan To: John Garry Cc: Marco Elver , Thomas Richter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org, svens@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, sumanthk@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Test 73 Sig_trap fails on s390 Message-ID: <20220118091827.GA98966@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> References: <20211216151454.752066-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com> <90efb5a9-612a-919e-cf2f-c528692d61e2@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <90efb5a9-612a-919e-cf2f-c528692d61e2@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 03:39:10PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 16/12/2021 15:48, Marco Elver wrote: > > + > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 16:15, Thomas Richter wrote: > > > In Linux next kernel > > > Commit 5504f67944484 ("perf test sigtrap: Add basic stress test for sigtrap handling") > > > introduced the new test which uses breakpoint events. > > > These events are not supported on s390 and PowerPC and always fail: > > > > > > # perf test -F 73 > > > 73: Sigtrap : FAILED! > > > # > > > > > > Fix it the same way as in the breakpoint tests in file > > > tests/bp_account.c where these type of tests are skipped on > > > s390 and PowerPC platforms. > > > > > > With this patch skip this test on both platforms. > > > > > > Output after: > > > # ./perf test -F 73 > > > 73: Sigtrap > > > > > > Fixes: 5504f67944484 ("perf test sigtrap: Add basic stress test for sigtrap handling") > > > > > > Cc: Marco Elver > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter > > Acked-by: Marco Elver > > > > Thanks, and sorry for missing this case! > > > > I am finding that this test hangs on my arm64 machine: > > john@debian:~/kernel-dev2/tools/perf$ sudo ./perf test -vvv 73 > 73: Sigtrap: > --- start --- > test child forked, pid 45193 Both Arm and Arm64 platforms cannot support signal handler with breakpoint, please see the details in [1]. So I think we need something like below: static int test__sigtrap(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __maybe_unused) { ... if (!BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED) { pr_debug("Test not supported on this architecture"); return TEST_SKIP; } ... } Since we have defined BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED, I think we can reuse it at here. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157169993406.29376.12473771029179755767.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/ > And fails on my x86 broadwell machine: > > john@localhost:~/kernel-dev2/tools/perf> sudo ./perf test -v 73 > 73: Sigtrap : > --- start --- > test child forked, pid 22255 > FAILED sys_perf_event_open(): Argument list too long > test child finished with -1 > ---- end ---- > Sigtrap: FAILED! > john@localhost:~/kernel-dev2/tools/perf> It is a bit suprise for the failure on x86, as I remembered x86 platform can support signal handler with hw breakpoint. And from the error "Argument list too long", it should be a different issue from other archs. Thanks, Leo