linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf test: Workload test of metric and metricgroups

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]

Message-ID: <361478a4-98d0-d488-2903-2c859a2c8524@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 11:04:10 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.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>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <eranian@...gle.com>, Paul Clarke <pc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf test: Workload test of metric and metricgroups

On 17/09/2021 20:16, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:37 AM John Garry<john.garry@...wei.com>  wrote:
>> On 16/09/2021 07:05, Ian Rogers wrote:
>>> Test every metric and metricgroup with 'true' as a workload.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers<irogers@...gle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: John Garry<john.garry@...wei.com>
>>
>> Note that I also had a local test for pmu events:
>> for e in `$PERF list --raw-dump pmu`; do
>>     echo "Testing $e"
>>     result=$($PERF stat -v -e "$e" perf bench internals synthesize)
>>     if [[ "$result" =~ "$e" ]]; then
>>       echo "Event not printed: $e"
>>       exit 1
>>     fi
>> done
>>
>> Is there any value in upstreaming this? I could not see same already
>> there. Or else make your new script generic, so that it accepts an
>> argument whether to test events or metrics or metricgroups
> It is not easy to make a generic script with the current shell test
> infrastructure. I made a variant of this test:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20210917184240.2181186-2-irogers@google.com/T/#u
> For skylake it ran for 1m15s and so it may be too slow. Perhaps we
> need to add to the test infrastructure with some kind of speed flag.

Hi Ian,

I suggested this before I realized that it would be called from "perf test".

You think that 1m15s could be considered too slow, but I think that it 
could be much slower to now run "perf test" on some other systems. Like 
my arm64 system - see series 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/1631795665-240946-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/T/#t 
- where I mention that we have >700 HW PMU events (before applying that 
series to take advantage of the event merging). And each of those events 
would be tested individually - slow...

So firstly maybe a speed or test level flag could be added before we try 
this. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Thanks,
John