Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752610AbdHNVCD (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:02:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43968 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752305AbdHNVCB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:02:01 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1B20525A7A9 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mpetlan@redhat.com Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:01:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Petlan X-X-Sender: Michael@Diego To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo cc: tmricht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, namhyung@kernel.org, dsahern@gmail.com, Jiri Olsa , tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@kernel.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, wangnan0@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf test shell: Install shell tests In-Reply-To: <20170814202854.GC2641@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20170814202854.GC2641@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 21:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2204 Lines: 52 On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:44:14PM +0200, Michael Petlan escreveu: > > Hi Arnaldo! > > > > Maybe this would be the right time to incorporate the shell-based > > perftool-testsuite [1] into perf-test, wouldn't it? > > Perhaps its time, yes. Some questions: > > Do these tests assume that perf was built in some particular way, i.e. > as it is packaged for RHEL? Of course I run the testsuite most often on RHEL, but it should be distro-agnostic, worked on Debian with their perf as well as with vanilla kernel/perf build from Linus' repo... It somehow assumes having kernel-debuginfo available (but this does not necessarily mean kernel-debuginfo RHEL package). It runs against 'perf' from path or against $CMD_PERF if this variable is defined. > > One thing that came to mind from a report from Kim Phillips, that I > addressed (to some extent) after this sending this first patchkit to > Ingo was that perf can be built in many ways, for instance, without > 'perf probe', or with 'perf probe' but without DWARF support, which will > allow some features to be tested while others should cause the test > needing not-builtin features to just return '2', that will make it be > marked as "Skip" in the output. > It has mechanisms for skipping things if they aren't supported, but definitely not *all*. E.g. it detects uprobe/kprobe support, POWER8 hv_24x7 events support, Intel uncore support, HW breakpoint events availablitity, etc. But as I said, perf without perf-probe subcommand would probably fail, because I wasn't aware of such possibility... Anyway, it is easily fixable... The suite has a mechanism for skipping particular tests. If there is a way to detect a feature support, it is easy to use it as a condition. The dwarf support might be more difficult, because afaik, there's no way to find out whether dwarf support just does not work or is disabled on purpose... Michael > - Arnaldo > > > It already contains bunch of shell-based perf tests that cover > > 25+ RH bugs... > > > > A little problem might be different design, since the testsuite > > has multiple levels of hierarchy of sub-sub-sub-tests, like: > > [SNIP]