From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754741AbdJIOj5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:39:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47998 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754228AbdJIOj4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:39:56 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 121BB5275A Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=jolsa@redhat.com Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:39:53 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Andi Kleen , Jiri Olsa , Wang Nan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , He Kuang , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf, tools: Don't force MetricExprs to lower case Message-ID: <20171009143953.GA1561@krava> References: <20170912195643.2611-1-andi@firstfloor.org> <20170912195643.2611-2-andi@firstfloor.org> <20171003160605.GC25388@kernel.org> <20171004103052.GC23759@krava> <20171004162711.GF2482@two.firstfloor.org> <20171009134151.GA15127@krava> <20171009140728.GG2482@two.firstfloor.org> <20171009141258.GE28623@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171009141258.GE28623@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:12:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:07:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:30:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > Em Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:56:43PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu: > > > > > > > From: Andi Kleen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are still problems with BPF misinterpreting some events > > > > > > > that include .c. An earlier fix made it work for stand alone > > > > > > > aliases, but it still fails for more complex constructs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Wang, Jiri, > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please take a look at this and see if there is something > > > > > > we can do to help Andi? > > > > > > > > > > > > - Arnaldo > > > > > > > > > > > > > REJECT keeps trying and trying a shorter string until > > > > > > > .c is matched and it appears like a valid BPF path. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > % perf stat -e cpu/uops_executed.core,cmask=1/ true > > > > > > > bpf: builtin compilation failed: -95, try external compiler > > > > > > > ERROR: problems with path cpu/uops_executed.c: No such file or directory > > > > > > > event syntax error: 'cpu/uops_executed.core,cmask=1/' > > > > > > > \___ Failed to load cpu/uops_executed.c from source: Error when compiling BPF scriptlet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried to fix it, but it exceeds my flex knowledge, because > > > > > > > REJECT does not interact well with BEGIN states. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The BPF syntax in its current form really causes an ambigious > > > > > > > grammar. > > > > > > > > > > right, it looks like we allow whole path (including / char) > > > > > for BPF file, which messes up with out pmu/.../ syntax > > > > > > > > > > do we need that? (Cc-ed some bpf folks) > > > > > > > > > > if not attached patch seems to fix things.. otherwise > > > > > we need to come up with another fix > > > > > > > > I tried similar patches, but I always ran into more complex > > > > situations where it still matched incorrectly. > > > > > > > > e.g. try it with cpu/uops_executed.core,... vs uops_executed.core > > > > > > hm, both works for me with the change: > > > > > > perf stat -e cpu/uops_executed.core/ ls > > > perf stat -e uops_executed.core ls > > > > Ok. If it works it's fine for me. well it works, but it means that bpf file cannot contains any directory part.. which im not sure is ok with bpf folks ;-) anyone? jirka