[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29a77348-2ab7-1235-3fcf-c505dab1f1a1@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:32:33 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
rbernon@...eweavers.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc
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@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.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.
>>
>> - Arnaldo
>>
>
> Hi
>
> 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@...lp76 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release
> Fedora release 33 (Thirty Three)
> [root@...lp76 perf]# ./perf test -F 68
> 68: PE file support : Ok
> [root@...lp76 perf]#
>
>
> However on my fedora32 machine it still fails:
> [root@...lp46 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release
> Fedora release 32 (Thirty Two)
> [root@...lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68
> 68: PE file support : FAILED!
> [root@...lp46 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.
Ravi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists