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 7FC5FC433F5 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231402AbiBRB6w (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:58:52 -0500 Received: from gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com ([23.128.96.19]:53988 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230372AbiBRB6v (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:58:51 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9230F1BBF66 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:58:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id t14-20020a17090a3e4e00b001b8f6032d96so7169861pjm.2 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:58:36 -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=ZDSkUfp9toni5mt9GhqILhie8mR19f4SRKJDHSNLJMQ=; b=egfIW48oBvJ/rLtSDNSipUVlWRgNK8wpWktEAmc/Pz+571EuPH93FuvLqvVMByQ5db HxtZ13ltXoICHbkwOBttZaBYSeCuox2CL3P4RAqZvDgpbPpaFuIF8QcVfmp9p+Y4VQpc mzA0G2mDcmnDkdl51jrsYO9slg6f8xE9971Xjsbuy4/LKM55y/CrCEgq2tbneTD/xBeK 3lC2cASpiz/4y7xNjRZljYqX0sfxnLI5TUGW/8WBeVgqCZoMhU1ieMHZSNWxYpx/+TzN St8Bj0xwfe32lJ1e+goTg/5mMQlIuZ4oZj8OJMq3iXzKrs2n9g7/mu280HPU3j2r6lV5 0Yaw== 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=ZDSkUfp9toni5mt9GhqILhie8mR19f4SRKJDHSNLJMQ=; b=yXHdabSlGoxwc1HLExGTq+2CnNkjIU78Sj96O5z9AYS9ZZFEingPiTFMXfYRQNh9yV LWGRx5VZblVuDUzb5ofVsvPe+wMR9Mi+ncgK0Tzsdlsw8nD0SKAm2PA9HJfd4TIqxmFJ evkqHionHeuxyH2vIK29c196JYAhFXmTr+YKLx+nelE0AsZLmAXEp5esJPSEDPfArpE+ PXlWk2j2VLv9MNgC5CDO5JOGxZPsA4Na0AoFYUqPsghEix/I6w2pLVSz4cPg4PhHO9UN PBJlblm8uQLVOOeo9gLSU5pCqkQenuYjnuHv8cDvdTIA1PKzo9xsQlKpL1SVgFAtnnuQ z22g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532pSPnAk+GmJHQD2jwXRDLakzqEpNuLRDHyvWCFAs/iY7k3vc0S 5I2xTW5XWNl42gZYkzfq+aqrdA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2k7pnPPA0dR19XFlkrV9I2LgB9Fmjp0AzFRXaw08FvPFHy9T2UllkCBD/Je9vr200hAGEwA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:250f:b0:1b8:f257:c39 with SMTP id ns15-20020a17090b250f00b001b8f2570c39mr5924833pjb.135.1645149515932; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from leoy-ThinkPad-X240s (104.225.159.78.16clouds.com. [104.225.159.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15sm8956290pgu.13.2022.02.17.17.58.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:58:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 09:58:28 +0800 From: Leo Yan To: Marco Elver Cc: John Garry , peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, dvyukov@google.com, will@kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, irogers@google.com, Thomas Richter Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip Sigtrap test for arm+aarch64 Message-ID: <20220218015828.GA925833@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> References: <1645114959-119064-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 06:40:45PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 18:34, John Garry wrote: > [...] > > >> -#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__) > > >> +#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__) || \ > > >> + defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__) > > >> #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 0 > > >> #else > > >> #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 1 > > > > > > This is now equivalent to BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED > > > tools/perf/tests/tests.h -- and different from the original > > > BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED (and makes me wonder why > > > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED wasn't just used from the beginning). Perhaps > > > just use BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED. > > > > > > > We currently have BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED defined now in 2x locations: > > > > tests/sigtrap.c > > tests/bp_account.c > > > > bp_account works for arm64, and we don't want to skip that test. So, as > > long as the macro meaning is appropriate, we can reuse > > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED for sigtrap.c > > BP_ACCOUNT seems to say something about the "breakpoint accounting / > measuring" test. BP_SIGNAL is about the tests that want to use > breakpoints to generate signals. More general speaking, I think "BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED = 1" means an architecture can support breakpoint with perf_event. "BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED = 1" means an architecture can support breakpoint to generate signals with using perf_event. So "BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED = 1" is subset of "BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED = 1". > So it's very much appropriate to use BP_SIGNAL here if, as we have > discovered regardless how they're generated in response to > breakpoints, are broken on arm/arm64. On the day arm/arm64 decides to > fix signals, I'm assuming all tests being skipped with > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED can be re-enabled (or so we hope). Yeah, I agree that BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED is better choice for sigtrap.c. Thanks, Leo