From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf test: Add kernel lock contention test
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 11:09:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7c89e623-c90f-181b-d22a-e1349ddb3340@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220924004221.841024-3-namhyung@kernel.org>
On 24/09/22 03:42, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Add a new shell test to check if both normal perf lock record +
> contention and BPF (with -b) option are working. Use perf bench
> sched messaging as a workload since it'd create some contention for
> sending and receiving messages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
There are a few things below that don't need to be fixed but
are perhaps things to be aware of.
Nevertheless:
Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+)
> create mode 100755 tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 000000000000..04bf604e3c6f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +# kernel lock contention analysis test
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
All the shell tests are like this, but checkpatch says:
WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 2
#24: FILE: tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh:2:
+# kernel lock contention analysis test
WARNING: Misplaced SPDX-License-Identifier tag - use line 2 instead
#25: FILE: tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh:3:
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +set -e
> +
> +err=0
> +perfdata=$(mktemp /tmp/__perf_test.perf.data.XXXXX)
> +result=$(mktemp /tmp/__perf_test.result.XXXXX)
> +
> +cleanup() {
> + rm -f ${perfdata}
> + rm -f ${result}
> + trap - exit term int
> +}
> +
> +trap_cleanup() {
> + cleanup
With "set -e", a command failure will end up here with err=0
> + exit ${err}
> +}
> +trap trap_cleanup exit term int
shellcheck -S warning tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh
In tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh line 14:
trap - exit term int
^--^ SC2039: In POSIX sh, using lower/mixed case for signal names is undefined.
^--^ SC2039: In POSIX sh, using lower/mixed case for signal names is undefined.
^-^ SC2039: In POSIX sh, using lower/mixed case for signal names is undefined.
In tools/perf/tests/shell/lock_contention.sh line 21:
trap trap_cleanup exit term int
^--^ SC2039: In POSIX sh, using lower/mixed case for signal names is undefined.
^--^ SC2039: In POSIX sh, using lower/mixed case for signal names is undefined.
^-^ SC2039: In POSIX sh, using lower/mixed case for signal names is undefined.
> +
> +check() {
> + if [ `id -u` != 0 ]; then
> + echo "[Skip] No root permission"
> + err=2
> + exit
> + fi
> +
> + if ! perf list | grep -q lock:contention_begin; then
> + echo "[Skip] No lock contention tracepoints"
> + err=2
> + exit
> + fi
> +}
> +
> +test_record()
> +{
> + echo "Testing perf lock record and perf lock contention"
> + perf lock record -o ${perfdata} -- perf bench sched messaging > /dev/null 2>&1
> + # the output goes to the stderr and we expect only 1 output (-E 1)
> + perf lock contention -i ${perfdata} -E 1 -q 2> ${result}
> + if [ $(cat "${result}" | wc -l) != "1" ]; then
> + echo "[Fail] Recorded result count is not 1:" $(cat "${result}" | wc -l)
> + err=1
> + exit
> + fi
> +}
> +
> +test_bpf()
> +{
> + echo "Testing perf lock contention --use-bpf"
> +
> + if ! perf lock con -b true > /dev/null 2>&1 ; then
> + echo "[Skip] No BPF support"
> + exit
> + fi
> +
> + # the perf lock contention output goes to the stderr
> + perf lock con -a -b -E 1 -q -- perf bench sched messaging > /dev/null 2> ${result}
> + if [ $(cat "${result}" | wc -l) != "1" ]; then
> + echo "[Fail] BPF result count is not 1:" $(cat "${result}" | wc -l)
> + err=1
> + exit
> + fi
> +}
> +
> +check
> +
> +test_record
> +test_bpf
> +
> +exit ${err}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-24 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-24 0:42 [PATCH 1/3] perf lock: Add -E/--entries option Namhyung Kim
2022-09-24 0:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] perf lock: Add -q/--quiet option Namhyung Kim
2022-09-24 2:49 ` Ian Rogers
2022-09-24 0:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] perf test: Add kernel lock contention test Namhyung Kim
2022-09-24 2:50 ` Ian Rogers
2022-09-24 8:09 ` Adrian Hunter [this message]
2022-09-24 16:50 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-09-24 2:49 ` [PATCH 1/3] perf lock: Add -E/--entries option Ian Rogers
2022-09-26 19:45 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7c89e623-c90f-181b-d22a-e1349ddb3340@intel.com \
--to=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).