[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP-5=fUnWAycQehCJ9=btquV2c3DVDX+tTEc85H8py9Kfehq4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:34:02 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Haiyan Song <haiyanx.song@...el.com>,
Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] perf metrics: fix parse errors in cascade lake metrics
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 7:38 AM Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:48:03AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > Remove over escaping with \\.
> > Remove extraneous if 1 if 0 == 1 else 0 else 0.
>
> So where do these parse errors happen exactly? Some earlier
> patches introduced them as regressions?
I'll work to track down a Fixes tag. I can repro the Skylakex errors
without the test in this series, by doing:
$ perf stat -M DRAM_Read_Latency sleep 1
Error:
The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 22 (Invalid argument)
for event (cha/event=0x36\,uma
sk=0x21/).
/bin/dmesg | grep -i perf may provide additional information.
This was just the escaping issue. I'm less clear on the other cascade
lake issue, and it is a bit more work for me to test on cascade lake.
What is "if 1 if 0 == 1 else 0 else 0" trying to do? Perhaps hunting
for the Fixes will let me know, but it looks like a copy-paste error.
> The original metrics worked without parse errors as far as I know.
The skylake issue above repros on 5.2.17 and so it seems like it is
broken for a while. The test in this series will prevent this in the
future, but without this patch that test fails.
> If it fixes something earlier it would need Fixes: tags.
Working on it. Thanks for the input!
Ian
> -Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists