From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793962316; b=KMwCyG7LZ8LPmd4suHLa7Mto/kpSAcxRZ6Lkmc3Udzz/lQe/ly34K0M/Rt6r7N7n4V6L 7HbWbrEdSby5SpjsC+fToup13ia/u1cVqZRY99jYVkv5vmdKFsGhpxC1FnKB+fT2CxNhA bepoplX8V75gfKGGCHD/P4FrqfRzeEEyfxRFB0HhZ2qMz6BdNscsYDQ40zTCH/VQ9P7ZD IvrZvYevfZd+bHdi4xNboe8Cc/51+woBvJgRx+ly1fpe/btjog5xL53tHbZESx1C3JaQZ +CYH4NIz3A5nTK/ioivlOXBbGtZz22z3XJy37em5GjtTIrVQSn20zFQg5ujm1I3HaDw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793962316; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date; bh=r9foQXmJTV1etxPqaKfMUteZLLHTbt4TSVeqZt/ZyMo=; b=0HycjQNVxk+WcDBoMVu2K24HHZOw28IZZAQZ2koWpHNd6OquvrFHVxZ/4IJWvrFfEY0L 2oQxD5wNbXDc0stCncoQBtRyKWkpbdGDt1et+965fRjlG4roWPSb/SZzCTwMKppHcZ4et w6mmJcZald5siZoCH5BgfcRvFrkAoYgvXItyKOaxKvOR7VnhCAHM6DN1Jfufk6TsCzIvM 87EizmUkYdnhDiWei2CJpthiPcK5x/qx2DL2kpOmDnZlC4Lw3FaubIvcA8aL74jWNCo4w 0D/B+d+VCxtsw0LXEHxNE4EF0G96pHpSPgupi8nMB27tYdiucH6CxlOdlQjw6wNbZog== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=gAAZzHqA; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF23A606A333 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 10:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=gAAZzHqA Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48D481F0089F; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 10:51:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793962315; bh=r9foQXmJTV1etxPqaKfMUteZLLHTbt4TSVeqZt/ZyMo=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=gAAZzHqAeW5OqYv0FXB/fwrK6w7ujIJRDdsfwCUG841u3dDBCIPUQjs+FMZW07I/4 X6c4714Dp2Zp7MaYL3HCm49ZZOU9oBFf4/3jvDfOJg2I+dbgzmD/R/q1mlAjBOVl4+ b3RNbvUooNk0tJwq6dRESG/Nqjkw1mOtbrNYCaQUsRYoQA0HW2W1zdeNmYWYbapOVJ DnoSXbaMEaPFbscoZhZwCAMaUR8XE5/6f/P6Tut8amSTDUDIxNSM82k+bh62AQvgMs d/StFxgGg/vsWM7B7nZpRNgZEhImuPq48PTQBJEw+oQf5BJlQ4hGHfziYz39X7QtG4 3UsHvofMhQe7Q== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf test: Don't starve per-process tests with system-wide events Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "James Clark" Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20261106-james-perf-test-fixes-v2-4-9a912662f822@linaro.org> References: <20261106-james-perf-test-fixes-v2-0-9a912662f822@linaro.org> <20261106-james-perf-test-fixes-v2-4-9a912662f822@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 10:51:54 +0000 X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list > Some tests intermittently fail when run in parallel, for example "Check > branch stack sampling" fails with no branches recorded at all. >=20 > The default event is cycles:P which there may only be 1 or 2 HW counters > for on Intel because it's precise. System wide or per-core precise > events hog the HW counter leaving other per-process tests with no > samples. Rather than make all the tests that use default record commands > run serially, just make the system wide ones use a software event which > has the greatest possible compatibility. They don't need precise > sampling or HW counters anyway. The per-process tests can be left alone > as their events/processes never run concurrently on any one core. >=20 > The LBR filter is another resource shared by all events on a CPU, and > the system-wide LBR test uses different filters to the per-process > branch stack test, so mark the LBR test as exclusive. > [ ... ] > ... > ---- end(-1) ---- > 138: Check branch stack sampling : FAILED! >=20 > Signed-off-by: James Clark Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261106-james-perf= -test-fixes-v2-0-9a912662f822@linaro.org?part=3D4