[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgvCbTBzVjBBP9/y@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:10:37 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] perf test: Make metric testing more robust.
Em Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 08:49:35AM +0000, John Garry escreveu:
> On 23/12/2021 18:56, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > When testing metric expressions we fake counter values from 1 going
> > upward. For some metrics this can yield negative values that are clipped
> > to zero, and then cause divide by zero failures. Such clipping is
> > questionable but may be a result of tools automatically generating
> > metrics. A workaround for this case is to try a second time with counter
> > values going in the opposite direction.
> >
> > This case was seen in a metric like:
> > event1 / max(event2 - event3, 0)
> > But it may also happen in more sensible metrics like:
> > event1 / (event2 + event3 - 1 - event4)
> >
> > v2. Rebase and more detail in commit message.
> > v3. Is a rebase.
>
> Incorrect location for this info
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Found thru the cracks, applying.
- Arnaldo
> > ---
> > tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c b/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c
> > index df1c9a3cc05b..b2ddf928d32a 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c
> > @@ -962,8 +962,18 @@ static int test__parsing(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> > }
> > if (expr__parse(&result, ctx, pe->metric_expr)) {
> > - expr_failure("Parse failed", map, pe);
> > - ret++;
> > + /*
> > + * Parsing failed, make numbers go from large to
> > + * small which can resolve divide by zero
>
> can or may?
>
> > + * issues.
> > + */
> > + k = 1024;
> > + hashmap__for_each_entry(ctx->ids, cur, bkt)
> > + expr__add_id_val(ctx, strdup(cur->key), k--);
> > + if (expr__parse(&result, ctx, pe->metric_expr)) {
> > + expr_failure("Parse failed", map, pe);
> > + ret++;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -1022,10 +1032,20 @@ static int metric_parse_fake(const char *str)
> > }
> > }
> > - if (expr__parse(&result, ctx, str))
> > - pr_err("expr__parse failed\n");
> > - else
> > - ret = 0;
> > + ret = 0;
> > + if (expr__parse(&result, ctx, str)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Parsing failed, make numbers go from large to small which can
> > + * resolve divide by zero issues.
> > + */
> > + i = 1024;
> > + hashmap__for_each_entry(ctx->ids, cur, bkt)
> > + expr__add_id_val(ctx, strdup(cur->key), i--);
> > + if (expr__parse(&result, ctx, str)) {
> > + pr_err("expr__parse failed\n");
> > + ret = -1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > out:
> > expr__ctx_free(ctx);
> >
--
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists