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 0DD7CC27C40 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237371AbjHWQz7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:55:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49164 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234205AbjHWQz6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2023 12:55:58 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F6CE66; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 09:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A55C062E36; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0AA0C433C7; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:55:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1692809754; bh=++6HhCwUPGOWOXz/P0X/vVAw0YbnEpCGFrio3lMQ3Y8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JAKTh5FZImC+h77+VqXozdKosY6YXBqcozXkt86lRDoT0uUmnO/OEf2dmeos0AKi2 nvuZjri7s4qfW2AIiMeJxIH8ubMErybJGZRkUDQGiQZKRaUYYFMO/+9J13IzCxT3gj nLJBr56VuQ2pccCvA5t09JPH3onw0M5Xp8XtF9Gmlm6EMeJ1socehOefzIZDTU70HL lT5g/mTeTgerFgutR79HMmC3rN9Xa64fFAkr0MCMgv8schPnYo0q4VuxCCmAcepYzA HcBWx/Hzrin8dQ2THBqEXu5HSuAXplhwvK0Y00EsraUXs5OY5iaRU2NeRVVHrL94cL po7tfIAzOJGaw== Received: by quaco.ghostprotocols.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B184A40722; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:55:51 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:55:51 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Adrian Hunter Cc: kernel test robot , oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ian Rogers , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [perf-tools-next:tmp.perf-tools-next] [perf dlfilter] f178a76b05: perf-sanity-tests.dlfilter_C_API.fail Message-ID: References: <202308232146.94d82cb4-oliver.sang@intel.com> <78a87ed2-3aa8-95ef-28ae-19961f7c4acb@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <78a87ed2-3aa8-95ef-28ae-19961f7c4acb@intel.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 06:37:49PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu: > On 23/08/23 17:57, kernel test robot wrote: > > kernel test robot noticed "perf-sanity-tests.dlfilter_C_API.fail" on: > > commit: f178a76b054fd046d212c3c67745146ff191a443 ("perf dlfilter: Add a test for resolve_address()") > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git tmp.perf-tools-next > > [test failed on linux-next/master 28c736b0e92e11bfe2b9997688213dc43cb22182] > We sometimes make a test for an issue then fix it, so the new test fails, > but is fixed in a subsequent patch. If you read the commit it says as much: > commit f178a76b054fd046d212c3c67745146ff191a443 > Author: Adrian Hunter > Date: Mon Jul 31 12:18:55 2023 +0300 > > perf dlfilter: Add a test for resolve_address() > > Extend the "dlfilter C API" test to test > perf_dlfilter_fns.resolve_address(). The test currently fails, but passes > after a subsequent patch. > > Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers > Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter > Cc: Jiri Olsa > Cc: Namhyung Kim > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230731091857.10681-1-adrian.hunter@intel.com > Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > The fix is: > 42c6dd9d23019ff339d0aca80a444eb71087050e perf dlfilter: Initialize addr_location before passing it to thread__find_symbol_fb() I wonder if we can automate this aspect of testing, by adding some markup that states that this _is supposed_ to fail, and if it doesn't, then we get a notification. It should probably also means that the next cset will make the test pass, ideas? - Arnaldo > > > > in testcase: perf-sanity-tests > > version: perf-x86_64-00c7b5f4ddc5-1_20230402 > > with following parameters: > > > > perf_compiler: gcc > > > > > > > > compiler: gcc-12 > > test machine: 224 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8480+ (Sapphire Rapids) with 256G memory > > > > (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace) > > > > > > > > > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202308232146.94d82cb4-oliver.sang@intel.com > > > > > > > > 66: Convert perf time to TSC : > > 66.1: TSC support : Ok > > 66.2: Perf time to TSC : Ok > > 67: dlfilter C API : FAILED! <--- > > 68: Sigtrap : Ok > > > > > > > > The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at: > > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230823/202308232146.94d82cb4-oliver.sang@intel.com > > > > > > > -- - Arnaldo