Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:49:10 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc |
| |
Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > On 12/8/20 8:13 PM, Thomas Richter wrote: > > On 12/7/20 5:35 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:04:53PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > > > > On 11/19/20 7:20 PM, Kajol Jain wrote: > > > > > Commit ed21d6d7c48e6e ("perf tests: Add test for PE binary format support") > > > > > adds a WINDOWS EXE file named tests/pe-file.exe, which is > > > > > examined by the test case 'PE file support'. As powerpc doesn't support > > > > > it, we are skipping this test.
> > > > > Result in power9 platform before this patach: > > > > > [command]# ./perf test -F 68 > > > > > 68: PE file support : Failed!
> > > > > Result in power9 platform after this patch: > > > > > [command]# ./perf test -F 68 > > > > > 68: PE file support : Skip
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
> > > But why is it failing? I.e. what is that
> > > perf test -v -F 68
> > > outputs?
> > > Using 'perf report' on a perf.data file containing samples in such > > > binaries, collected on x86 should work on whatever workstation a > > > developer uses.
> > > Say, on a MacBook aarch64 one can look at a perf.data file collected on > > > a x86_64 system where Wine running a PE binary was present.
> > What is the distro you are using? > > I observed the same issue on s390 but this was fixed for fedora33 somehow. > > The error just went away after a dnf update....
> > [root@m35lp76 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release > > Fedora release 33 (Thirty Three) > > [root@m35lp76 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > > 68: PE file support : Ok > > [root@m35lp76 perf]#
> > However on my fedora32 machine it still fails: > > [root@t35lp46 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release > > Fedora release 32 (Thirty Two) > > [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > > 68: PE file support : FAILED! > > [root@t35lp46 perf]# > > > > Note that I am running the same kernel on both machines: linux 5.10.0rc7 downloaded > > this morning. > > > > Ok that's interesting. I don't see that on powerpc. > > Fedora 32 with 5.10.0-rc2+ kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > Fedora 33 with 5.10.0-rc3 kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > Ubuntu 18.04.5 with 4.15.0-126-generic kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:41 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > > I assumed bfd is not capable to parse PE files on powerpc. Though, > I didn't check it in more detail. I'll look into it tomorrow.
Humm, so this is something related to installation? I.e. that pe-file.exe isn't being found...
It first assumes that the developers are in the tools/perf/ directory, can you please add the patch below and see if it helps?
Without it and without having actually installed perf (for instance with 'make -C tools/perf install' I get:
[acme@five perf]$ perf test -F 68 68: PE file support : FAILED! [acme@five perf]$
[acme@five perf]$ perf test -F -v 68 Couldn't bump rlimit(MEMLOCK), failures may take place when creating BPF maps, etc 68: PE file support : --- start --- FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id ---- end ---- PE file support: FAILED! [acme@five perf]$
If I go to tools/perf:
[acme@five perf]$ perf test 68 68: PE file support : Ok [acme@five perf]$
With the patch below it works both at the top level dir and at tools/perf/ on a system without a perf installation containing these PE files.
We have this in tools/perf/Makefile.perf:
install-tests: all install-gtk $(call QUIET_INSTALL, tests) \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/attr.py '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/pe-file.exe* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ <--------------------------------------------- $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/attr/* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/shell/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/shell/lib/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib'
install-bin: install-tools install-tests install-traceevent-plugins
- Arnaldo
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c index 58b90c42eb38c1b9..a380d31b645b58dd 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ int test__pe_file_parsing(struct test *test __maybe_unused, if (!lstat("./tests", &st)) return run_dir("./tests"); + if (!lstat("./tools/perf/tests", &st)) + return run_dir("./tools/perf/tests"); + /* Then installed path. */ snprintf(path_dir, PATH_MAX, "%s/tests", get_argv_exec_path());
| |