Messages in this thread | | | From | Ian Rogers <> | Date | Thu, 14 May 2020 16:02:49 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf test: Improve pmu event metric testing |
| |
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 2:00 AM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote: > > On 13/05/2020 17:10, Ian Rogers wrote: > >> Out of interest, if we could move the validation of metrics to jevents, > >> how much functionality would we still have here? > > If we add checking to jevents then the MetricExpr would be known to be > > valid, however, the events (aka ids) within the expression could be > > invalid. > > So I think that has some value. I mean, just to detect syntax errors, > like those remedied in "perf metrics: fix parse errors in power8 metrics". > > > I'm not sure we could realistically check the events at > > jevents (build) time as there is no guarantee that the machine we run > > on is the same as the one we compile on. > > But we could at least check that there are event aliases for that CPU, > right? (by examining the JSONs for that cpu). If the event alias does > not actually match on the target CPU, then that can't be helped.
Agreed, I think there will be some cases where something more can be done. Jiri has proposed fake pmus as well: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg11760.html I don't know how much sense it makes trying to get this in jevents, as long as 'perf test' is run.
Thanks, Ian
> Cheers, > John >
| |