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 861CE1AF0C2; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:40:30 +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=1734982830; cv=none; b=nwkOMFFyxJfLIiVf9kYNBY4mWwwV9X/U1FotlBznlkBIGpbPwfWte7CsylBSB+3bv3bQxLi6meQejSMGhnNTDpsh3xryL9tfRCcKMqxZHwq2FbSF5cdENFLwJ3yE2wrnNfznwkmZweXwqzjP1SRCln8n/GrCFllf/ipoM3m9FIU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734982830; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aDrX5GK4Z9XFeu9FdRLyGBtnq1fu4S+7J7BT0Z8jOlM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lczQccY8Qw0Afz4r1k8Eq4EE6yz1oAQOg1PyWMx0LsDU3mV6sZx9okPQD+ZrzqvzHNO+Qewz7mRuNaNfWX/9D7r7lkZIe9js81mVXUWl93X/9RCbwCop12xwxj+pkYh5qjXPfsn6wREw42A+u4vvChlMLiPs2l3fyYLk8sTcLgM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JmiliiiJ; 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="JmiliiiJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 747BEC4CED3; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:40:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1734982830; bh=aDrX5GK4Z9XFeu9FdRLyGBtnq1fu4S+7J7BT0Z8jOlM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JmiliiiJ1gQNgOskNrcN09MMW3hLqULcA0gkGGFHjimE677lJPXx3DB2bLbqNdaBy juc+3keuDMh+Bf936HbvqY/Wy2UW3HWdfbCjvfFgMoRgUObETYJT4yndLDybTVb7CZ 2D2qA+w3w2mAC8hkIgAf8qzJVb+QRDVFFh2JVkGC+joZExexxv9dUn664ySQZOrIDy RnKO/kPODxqYJOuP5p52bdqP2ymY7meKhghOMLdtBAr19vuNPjFl8uzICkaBhyj32P vii+bWKZvmkF2tE9+tbESMEu2Zp6SRO3tFdNlWjzkNown5GbGlYWlVQ/Zjddl7zBHw RIGHAS6jfhnHg== Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:40:27 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Howard Chu , mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com, kan.liang@linux.intel.com, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] perf trace: Add more tests for BTF-augmented perf trace Message-ID: References: <20241215190712.787847-1-howardchu95@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 04:02:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:58:46AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 11:07:09AM -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > > > Changes in v4: > > > - Use if -f to check the existence of vmlinux BTF, and exit if it > > > doesn't, so trace_test_string will not overwrite $err, and keep > > > running the test. > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - Add vmlinux BTF check, and skip the tests if it doesn't exist > > > > > > v1, v2: > > > > > > The previous version of the perf trace BTF general augmentation tests > > > didn't pass Shellcheck (thanks to Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > > for pointing this out), this version uses bash instead > > > of POSIX shell to pass Shellcheck. > > > > > > This patch series also adds documentation for the new option > > > --force-btf, which is used in the tests. > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/Zt9yiQq-n-W6I274@x1/ > > > > > > Howard Chu (2): > > > perf trace: Add tests for BTF general augmentation > > > perf docs: Add documentation for --force-btf option > > > > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim > > Thanks, applied to perf-tools-next, It fails when running in parallel mode, sometimes: 109: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! Then: root@number:~# perf stat --null -r 10 perf test "BTF general" 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok Performance counter stats for 'perf test BTF general' (10 runs): 2.148 +- 0.293 seconds time elapsed ( +- 13.63% ) root@number:~# So its not just when running in paralell, anyway, its merged, we can go on from what we got there. - Arnaldo