linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/14] perf tests: Check on subtest for user specified test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 13:15:12 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/14] perf tests: Check on subtest for user specified test

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:23:00AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:42:05AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > hi,
> > changes for using metric result in another metric seem
> > to change lot of core metric code, so it's better we
> > have some more tests before we do that.
> > 
> > Sending as RFC as it's still alive and you guys might
> > have some other idea of how to do this.
> > 
> > Also available in here:
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git
> >   perf/fixes
> 
> I applied the first three patches, will wait a bit for Ian and others to
> have some time to look at it, but one thing I thought was that instead
> of having parse_state->fake_pmu as a bool, you could have it as a
> pointer to the fake pmu, this way we would do away with that static
> thing in the middle of the parsing code.
> 
> +static int check_id(const char *id)
> +{
> +	struct parse_events_error error;
> +	struct evlist *evlist;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/* Numbers are always valid. */
> +	if (is_number(id))
> +               return 0;
> +
> +	evlist = evlist__new();
> +	if (!evlist)
> +               return -1;
> +
> +	memset(&error, 0, sizeof(error));
> +       ret = parse_events_fake(evlist, id, &error);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               pr_debug("str        : %s\n", error.str);
> +               pr_debug("help       : %s\n", error.help);
> +               pr_debug("first_str  : %s\n", error.first_str);
> +               pr_debug("first_help : %s\n", error.first_help);
> +       }
> +
> +       evlist__delete(evlist);
> +       free(error.str);
> +	free(error.help);
> +       free(error.first_str);
> +       free(error.first_help);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> 
> 
> Would read:
> 
> 	struct perf_pmu fake = { 0, };
> 	.
> 	.
> 	.
> 	ret = parse_events_fake_pmu(evlist, id, &fake, &error);

hi,

ok I'll check, but what I'd like to keep is to have the fake pmu
defined in just one place, I was initialy thinking to put it on
the list of pmus, but then it'd appear in other places we dont want,
like perf list ;-)

> 	.
> 	.
> 	.
> 
> 
> That also renames parse_events_fake() to parse_events_fake_pmu().

ok, thanks,
jirka