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 20F372F43; Sun, 18 May 2025 18:22:26 +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=1747592547; cv=none; b=menoZ6sTTompfDx5N3eUW4jF4vId6GDhdANL74cHvHhJcL8uBynh5RklqctK9I3BelpSy8lKed6p87bnOgQwxIzIhBrBouOLGzebAi5tLO9jjbQnuRX/PGNrxLTi7CplF5ScCK5/5p7cjTpyMT+3blQWaYXtxwiVYlV01vAX+EY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747592547; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EnnWZB0MZexjMCxP36KNpsbyoK0cjDvkX8TX3PirRJw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=F5URxrv9ayDSev24KbtFgC3BPQisIcTY1P9O5VO3DXVKzFumnW3YB4ubXt+Wo95KJ0//CFJXAcU2EWxYdpiQJS1W3b0sePRUWUS353tvflhE6oKgA+7pxBq4+dGPuHGa59ZOZCTCpKXnjIa2sn0fcFjetdHdti5XzCGwoqvxwgA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=maqrxpi3; 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="maqrxpi3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28723C4CEE7; Sun, 18 May 2025 18:22:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1747592546; bh=EnnWZB0MZexjMCxP36KNpsbyoK0cjDvkX8TX3PirRJw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=maqrxpi3IRvVCV5MGiHONoKbNmT/aoH1u2upsW9aOd4LTKV2Czyz9mAxYdAbQksbC Rmi9yNXDVS17TjSdhGTELsJkcdgd39uTKxNuOpSESenRWPCu1i+K8uVQeUAGaTl607 spUTlBA6V8MkNGoLm9aZ2C5536zHt0DCBzVWpoQMNwHiMN6XWau85XLVhFOUIuUjbW jOudksV7AEY6ICKygYeZuM4dXsf2cSBPygApUUDhEb9naa6RCO1oduAmAxFEHfWLXH ZVPY1GpovPNZX4KPIyg69iqEwH8GqeCP4GDOhafgZLTmISTbIH8xmM03iB4Skxmodb NtU4sZwED2jUA== Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:22:24 -0700 From: Namhyung Kim To: Ravi Bangoria Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , 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> 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: <33e86415-c90d-420a-b7a8-6a360769aea4@amd.com> Hi Ravi, On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 05:33:19PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > Hi Arnaldo, > > > If it needs a specific kernel, then the test needs to cope with that, > > etc. > > 1) Bunch of IBS kernel fixes went in recently (v6.15-rc1): > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250115054438.1021-1-ravi.bangoria@amd.com > > Since you are running on 6.14.5-300.fc42.x86_64, the failures are > genuine and indicating that kernel should be fixed. > > I'm wondering how would the test cope with the buggy kernel. Or > probably 'perf test' a wrong place to put such selftests? Maybe... some kernel internal changes can be tested in the selftest. And 'perf test' should work with any kernel versions. Is the test checking any invalid configs? Probably then it should move to the selftest so that it can be tied to the fixed kernels and 'perf test' should only use valid configs. Thanks, Namhyung > > 2) "mprotect() failed. Permission denied" seems to be because of > SELinux enforced mode? I'll prepare and post a fix but, even > with the error, it's just part of the dummy workload function > so wouldn't break any test functionality. > > Thanks, > Ravi