Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230914211948.814999-1-irogers@google.com> <CAM9d7cgNbRs3LJh_AjqAnRkJzsTxrGr_yqVK-urtoS-B2k1S=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZQmfOO0tt9FuIkrj@kernel.org> <CAP-5=fXn=5SXqHKxaSAxs3bwQifUTVQWnrQb5A6D=3CHygfHLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fXn=5SXqHKxaSAxs3bwQifUTVQWnrQb5A6D=3CHygfHLg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 21:11:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgTAQ9pQfC7pNHPy1UdZr+5zD0T76EYkosV72-P7HPQjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Enable BPF skeletons by default
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@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>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Nick Terrell <terrelln@fb.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        Patrice Duroux <patrice.duroux@gmail.com>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:40 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 6:16 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Em Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 04:40:15PM -0700, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:20 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Enable BPF skeletons by default but warn don't fail if they can't be
> > > > supported. This was the intended behavior for Linux 6.4 but it caused
> > > > an issue captured in this thread:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230503211801.897735-1-acme@kernel.org/
> > > >
> > > > This issue isn't repeated here as the previous issue related to
> > > > generating vmlinux.h, which is no longer performed by default as a
> > > > checked-in vmlinux.h is used instead.
> > > >
> > > > Unlike with those changes, the BUILD_BPF_SKEL is kept and setting it
> > > > to 0 disables BPF skeletons. Also, rather than fail the build due to a
> > > > missed dependency, dependencies are checked and BPF skeletons disabled
> > > > if they aren't present.
> > > >
> > > > Some related commits:
> > > > b7a2d774c9c5 perf build: Add ability to build with a generated vmlinux.h
> > > > a887466562b4 perf bpf skels: Stop using vmlinux.h generated from BTF, use subset of used structs + CO-RE
> > > > a2af0f6b8ef7 perf build: Add system include paths to BPF builds
> > > > 5be6cecda080 perf bpf skels: Make vmlinux.h use bpf.h and perf_event.h in source directory
> > > > 9a2d5178b9d5 Revert "perf build: Make BUILD_BPF_SKEL default, rename to NO_BPF_SKEL"
> > > > a887466562b4 perf bpf skels: Stop using vmlinux.h generated from BTF, use subset of used structs + CO-RE
> > > > 1d7966547e11 perf build: Add warning for when vmlinux.h generation fails
> > > > a980755beb5a perf build: Make BUILD_BPF_SKEL default, rename to NO_BPF_SKEL
> > > >
> > > > Ian Rogers (5):
> > > >   perf version: Add status of bpf skeletons
> > > >   perf build: Default BUILD_BPF_SKEL, warn/disable for missing deps
> > > >   perf test: Update build test for changed BPF skeleton defaults
> > > >   perf test: Ensure EXTRA_TESTS is covered in build test
> > > >   perf test: Detect off-cpu support from build options
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> >
> > Is this verbose by default now? Maybe its something on my side, but I
> > noticed a higher level of verbosity, can you check?
>
> I don't see more verbosity. Logs below.

I don't see it either.

Thanks,
Namhyung