Re: [PATCH] perf test: Add cgroup summary test case for perf trace

[Howard Chu <howardchu95@gmail.com>]

Hello Arnaldo and Namhyung,

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 3:12 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 07:11:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:49:37PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 08:33:16AM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> > > > $ sudo /tmp/perf/perf test -vv 112
> > > > 112: perf trace summary:
> > > > 112: perf trace summary
> > > > --- start ---
> > > > test child forked, pid 1574993
> > > > testing: perf trace -s -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -S -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -s --summary-mode=thread -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -S --summary-mode=total -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -as --summary-mode=thread --no-bpf-summary -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -as --summary-mode=total --no-bpf-summary -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -as --summary-mode=thread --bpf-summary -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -as --summary-mode=total --bpf-summary -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -aS --summary-mode=total --bpf-summary -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -as --summary-mode=cgroup --bpf-summary -- true
> > > > testing: perf trace -aS --summary-mode=cgroup --bpf-summary -- true
> > > > ---- end(0) ----
> > > > 112: perf trace summary                                              : Ok
> >
> > > Thanks, tested and applied to perf-tools-next,
> >
> > But then when running all the tests, since this does system wide
> > tracing, it fails:
> >
> > 112: perf trace summary                                              : FAILED!
> >
> > It works with the following patch applied, please check and ack/review:
> >
> > From 8c868979d886e2e88aa89f4e3d884e1b6450a7b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
> > Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 19:01:47 -0300
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] perf tests trace_summary.sh: Run in exclusive mode
> >
> > And it is being successfull only when running alone, probably because
> > there are some tests that add the vfs_getname probe that gets used by
> > 'perf trace' and alter how it does syscall arg pathname resolution.
> >
> > This should be removed or made a fallback to the preferred BPF mode of
> > getting syscall parameters, but till then, run this in exclusive mode.
> >
> > For reference, here are some of the tests that run close to this one:
> >
> >   127: perf record offcpu profiling tests                              : Ok
> >   128: perf all PMU test                                               : Ok
> >   129: perf stat --bpf-counters test                                   : Ok
> >   130: Check Arm CoreSight trace data recording and synthesized samples: Skip
> >   131: Check Arm CoreSight disassembly script completes without errors : Skip
> >   132: Check Arm SPE trace data recording and synthesized samples      : Skip
> >   133: Test data symbol                                                : Ok
> >   134: Miscellaneous Intel PT testing                                  : Skip
> >   135: test Intel TPEBS counting mode                                  : Skip
> >   136: perf script task-analyzer tests                                 : Ok
> >   137: Check open filename arg using perf trace + vfs_getname          : Ok
> >   138: perf trace summary                                              : Ok
> >
> > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
> > Cc: Howard Chu <howardchu95@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > Cc: James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>

Nacked (sorry). I think running them tests in parallel is great
because it points out a problem that perf trace has. Please check out
this approach: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250529065537.529937-1-howardchu95@gmail.com/T/#u

Thanks,
Howard