linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Disha Goel <disgoel@linux.ibm.com>
To: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org
Cc: irogers@google.com, ak@linux.intel.com, rnsastry@linux.ibm.com,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	james.clark@arm.com, kjain@linux.ibm.com, namhyung@kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 14:50:09 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c53cd45-a8a8-c338-f9b0-3171ff55fff1@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230131135001.54578-1-atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5505 bytes --]

On 1/31/23 7:20 PM, Athira Rajeev wrote:

> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> support as below:
>
>   # ./perf test 36
>   36: BPF filter                                                      :
>   36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>   36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>   36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>
> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
>
> Detailed logs:
> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>
> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>
> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>
> With the change,
>
> 	# ./perf test 36
>   	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>   	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>   	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>   	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>
> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev<atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Tested the patch on powerpc, perf bpf test skips when libtraceevent-devel package is not installed.

  36: BPF filter                                                      :
  36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
  36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
  36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)

Tested-by: Disha Goel<disgoel@linux.ibm.com>

> ---
>   tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>   #define NR_ITERS       111
>   #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>   
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   #include <linux/bpf.h>
>   #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>   
> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>   static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>   {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	return test__bpf(0);
>   #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>   	return TEST_SKIP;
>   #endif
>   }
> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>   {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	return test__bpf(1);
>   #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>   	return TEST_SKIP;
>   #endif
>   }
> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>   {
> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	return test__bpf(2);
>   #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>   	return TEST_SKIP;
>   #endif
>   }
>   
>   
>   static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>   	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>   			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>   	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>   #endif
>   #else
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>   #endif
>   	{ .name = NULL, }
>   };

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5997 bytes --]

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-02-06 22:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-31 13:50 [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support Athira Rajeev
2023-02-02  0:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2023-02-06  3:57   ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-06 14:40     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2023-02-07  5:15       ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-06  9:20 ` Disha Goel [this message]

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=8c53cd45-a8a8-c338-f9b0-3171ff55fff1@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=disgoel@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=james.clark@arm.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kjain@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=rnsastry@linux.ibm.com \
    /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).