Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ecd941b3-2fd5-61d8-93a1-76a3a3ee4138@huawei.com>
 <CAP-5=fUxQZ+rxLEn6jeRNVMf48BaPNdaUdoMs8LY4P-GROiOnw@mail.gmail.com> <cd501541-deb5-f2f5-e086-cca44b40c87d@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <cd501541-deb5-f2f5-e086-cca44b40c87d@huawei.com>
From:   Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 09:00:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP-5=fU05k62d57pbWquqv3Z1RFzWMOB1d3OFEcEax5btEWEzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: perf tool: About tests debug level
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        "linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 4:58 AM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 22/06/2021 06:04, Ian Rogers wrote:
> >> ---- end ----
> >> Parse and process metrics: FAILED!
> >>
> >> Note that the "FAILED" messages from the test code come from pr_debug().
> >>
> >> In a way, I feel that pr_debug()/err from the test is more important
> >> than pr_debug() from the core code (when running a test).
> >>
> >> Any opinion on this or how to improve (if anyone agrees with me)? Or am
> >> I missing something? Or is it not so important?
> > Hi John,
> >
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> > I think the issue is that in the parsing you don't know it's broken
> > until something goes wrong. Putting everything on pr_err would cause
> > spam in the not broken case.
>
> Right, I would not suggest using pr_err everywhere.
>
> > Improving the parsing error handling is a
> > big task with lex and yacc to some extent getting in the way. Perhaps
> > a middle way is to have a parameter to the parser that logs more, and
> > recursively call this in the parser when parsing fails. I guess there
> > is also a danger of a performance hit.
>
> So I am thinking that for running a test, -v means different levels logs
> for test code and for core (non-test code). For example, -v prints
> pr_warn() and higher for test logs, but nothing for core logs. And then
> -vv for running a test gives pr_debug and above for test logs, and
> pr_warn and above for core logs. Or something like that.
>
> Maybe that is not a good idea. But I'm just saying that it's hard to
> debug currently at -v for tests.
>
> Thanks,
> John

I think this sounds good. It'd be nice also to have verbose output in
the shell tests following the same convention. There's currently no
verbose logging in shell tests but I propose it here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210621215648.2991319-1-irogers@google.com/
By their nature some of the shell tests launch perf, perhaps there can
be some convention on passing the verbose flag through in those cases.

Thanks,
Ian