From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 641EF2BFC9E; Wed, 21 May 2025 20:50:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747860607; cv=none; b=ZZ9Yj/7QoFrDHyNboCZ56OHFWilKnCDOs71+jfWlBbKOtUVgeT0UcmPdXWGVgVY5ZEwSBbL7eJ/4rLmVQaG4ONbBtE+IR9vMfx1++sLE9FM1Xhx/JKrjIl0SV6+05KwQaK2vcBWL8K91KLw4ycC1l+oaRaUkcuJFWDDXsbbr7Nk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747860607; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N37wVWerWd7nPL9xYaWJ8SxgWS4N6DGwmoe0dWApv00=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oHHLCyZ2p3LVvAfKVbBGvzqRiFzdDD1iTyeE/S1jprqGcY40/usz2WRe1TY8DM1EBnRToo2Oin4DFW6ChhFESezzrP4er0crVbsA+EzbX8N8Uh4RC5BKGe4t/VKGAjnj17GsDa4May1iTjBFZftKzzGJ7vS/PEwGHEkeWNbiqu8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=CKPcSpX/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="CKPcSpX/" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9632DC4CEE4; Wed, 21 May 2025 20:50:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1747860605; bh=N37wVWerWd7nPL9xYaWJ8SxgWS4N6DGwmoe0dWApv00=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CKPcSpX/yIYRaer7liv4CXUHA7V7Ta7MCATogpw0v9rA0EU9pEj9A7wFMcqD/zGzy fHvepn9nPxp6sMOCGN+uoriHnD/DBeSKHp+j8rj4t285Lb/bZ0XblGxq1BmqPn4HlU NE+wJpTYbvVtaql7Q889wccn/fx+wNK4k1B/GD+5Vif1vvjUWqJloVepynyvxWl9lX woea6R/HBqoctf51eJZq+cOAVEu2sAipNG4MLfMZAFkFTqGMogMeZg5dwM65zYtis1 Bwx1wOJHrzmIoV4d3LxH3/Ag3UR+OZsb2j5mPWNiDdrSSj7ohapxmrwRuQTh3z5lDL 24XEcn5WrMO8Q== Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:50:04 -0700 From: Namhyung Kim To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Ravi Bangoria , Adrian Hunter , Ian Rogers , James Clark , Jiri Olsa , Kan Liang , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: IBS perf test failures on 9950x3d Message-ID: References: <33e86415-c90d-420a-b7a8-6a360769aea4@amd.com> <804ac0d6-22f7-40c3-9ff5-e5f9d863d37e@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:47:50PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 04:31:29PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > > > Telling that to the user and possibly skipping the test if viable using > > > uname to get the version and if less than v6.15-rc1 print "Skip (needs > > > v6.15-rc1 or newer)" may be an option. > > > > Then if the bug somehow reappears, people running 'perf test' will flag > > > it. > > > Sure. Attaching a patch at the end. > > Thanks, I'm applying it. > > But now that I think about it, it may well be the case that, say, RHEL > backports the fixes in v6.15 for an enterprise kernel that has an > "older" version, so probably the best is for execute the test, if it > fails, then do the version check to decide if it is an unexpected > failure. Yeah, that was my concern too. I'm fine with having it in perf test and skip older kernels though. > > But this can be done on top, lets make progress and apply your patch. > > > > And I think having it in 'perf test' as well may make the feature to be > > > tested more widely, both by those who run selftests as well as by people > > > trying just 'perf test'. > > > > Yeah, that was precisely the reason I did it in 'perf test'. +1. Thanks, Namhyung