Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] perf report: Add latency and parallelism profiling

Namhyung Kim
2025-02-07T03:57:07Z

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:51:16AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 10:41 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 19:30, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > We traditionally didn't do it, but in general test coverage
> > > of perf report is too low, so I would recommend to add some simple
> > > test case in the perf test scripts.
> >
> > What of this is testable within the current testing framework?
> > Also how do I run tests? I failed to figure it out.
>
> Often just having a test that ensure a command doesn't segfault is
> progress :-) The shell tests Andi mentions are here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/shell?h=perf-tools-next
> There's no explicit `perf report` test there but maybe the annotate,
> diff or record tests could give you some ideas.

Well, we have. :)

$ ./perf test -vv report
116: perftool-testsuite_report:
--- start ---
test child forked, pid 109653
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: setup :: prepare the perf.data file
## [ PASS ] ## perf_report :: setup SUMMARY
-- [ SKIP ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: help message :: testcase skipped
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: basic execution
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: number of samples
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: header
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: header timestamp
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: show CPU utilization
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: pid
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: non-existing symbol
-- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: symbol filter
## [ PASS ] ## perf_report :: test_basic SUMMARY
---- end(0) ----
116: perftool-testsuite_report : Ok

Thanks,
Namhyung