linux-perf-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tools subcmd: Add non-waitpid check_if_command_finished()
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:33:35 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZpGTHzfIeREt5VUO@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fV4oPEjX2fh3aeBbmBGgYJGCdBnVjTZ2XnCCgnTSa0LTw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ian,

On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:24:50PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 8:24 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 09:42:35PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > Using waitpid can cause stdout/stderr of the child process to be
> > > lost. Use Linux's /prod/<pid>/status file to determine if the process
> > > has reached the zombie state. Use the 'status' file rather than 'stat'
> > > to avoid issues around skipping the process name.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/lib/subcmd/run-command.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/subcmd/run-command.c b/tools/lib/subcmd/run-command.c
> > > index 4e3a557a2f37..ec06683e77a0 100644
> > > --- a/tools/lib/subcmd/run-command.c
> > > +++ b/tools/lib/subcmd/run-command.c
> > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > >  #include <unistd.h>
> > >  #include <sys/types.h>
> > >  #include <sys/stat.h>
> > > +#include <ctype.h>
> > >  #include <fcntl.h>
> > >  #include <string.h>
> > >  #include <linux/string.h>
> > > @@ -217,8 +218,40 @@ static int wait_or_whine(struct child_process *cmd, bool block)
> > >
> > >  int check_if_command_finished(struct child_process *cmd)
> > >  {
> > > +#ifdef __linux__
> >
> > Is this really necessary?  I don't think we plan to support other OS..
> 
> I don't think it'd be unreasonable to say run "perf report" on
> Windows, or using wasm inside a web browser. Part of the reason for
> doing things this way was to keep the WNOHANG logic although this
> change no longer uses it for __linux__.

I'm not sure we are ready to run it on other platforms.  So I think
it's better simply remove it for now.

Thanks,
Namhyung


> > > +     char filename[FILENAME_MAX + 12];
> > > +     char status_line[256];
> > > +     FILE *status_file;
> > > +
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * Check by reading /proc/<pid>/status as calling waitpid causes
> > > +      * stdout/stderr to be closed and data lost.
> > > +      */
> > > +     sprintf(filename, "/proc/%d/status", cmd->pid);
> > > +     status_file = fopen(filename, "r");
> > > +     if (status_file == NULL) {
> > > +             /* Open failed assume finish_command was called. */
> > > +             return true;
> > > +     }
> > > +     while (fgets(status_line, sizeof(status_line), status_file) != NULL) {
> > > +             char *p;
> > > +
> > > +             if (strncmp(status_line, "State:", 6))
> > > +                     continue;
> > > +
> > > +             fclose(status_file);
> > > +             p = status_line + 6;
> > > +             while (isspace(*p))
> > > +                     p++;
> > > +             return *p == 'Z';
> > > +     }
> > > +     /* Read failed assume finish_command was called. */
> > > +     fclose(status_file);
> > > +     return true;
> > > +#else
> > >       wait_or_whine(cmd, /*block=*/false);
> > >       return cmd->finished;
> > > +#endif
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  int finish_command(struct child_process *cmd)
> > > --
> > > 2.45.2.803.g4e1b14247a-goog
> > >

  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-12 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-01  4:42 [PATCH v2 0/2] perf test: Display remaining tests while waiting Ian Rogers
2024-07-01  4:42 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] tools subcmd: Add non-waitpid check_if_command_finished() Ian Rogers
2024-07-03  3:23   ` Namhyung Kim
2024-07-03  4:24     ` Ian Rogers
2024-07-12 20:33       ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2024-07-12 21:19         ` Ian Rogers
2024-07-13 14:59           ` Namhyung Kim
2024-07-14 18:13             ` Ian Rogers
2024-07-01  4:42 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] perf test: Display number of remaining tests Ian Rogers
2024-07-03  3:39   ` Namhyung Kim
2024-07-03  4:30     ` Ian Rogers
2024-07-03 21:23       ` Namhyung Kim

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=ZpGTHzfIeREt5VUO@google.com \
    --to=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=james.clark@arm.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --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).