linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf build: Use libtraceevent from the system

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <346AAE98-7BB0-4639-A63D-3FBC331C721A@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:40:36 +0530
From:   Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     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@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf build: Use libtraceevent from the system



> On 14-Dec-2022, at 3:39 AM, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:53 AM Athira Rajeev
> <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12-Dec-2022, at 7:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Em Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 12:04:18PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 09-Dec-2022, at 4:02 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Em Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 07:04:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>>>>>> Em Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:21:20PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>>>>>>>> On 07-Dec-2022, at 10:57 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Can you try again? tmp.perf/core? That "tmp." part means its a force
>>>>>>>> pushed branch, so I just force pushed with some arch specific fixes, now
>>>>>>>> I'm down to (removing the successful builds and unrelated failures, now
>>>>>>>> related to libbpf's F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC kaboom):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ok Arnaldo, Sure, I will check with updated branch
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 5     7.38 fedora:34                     : FAIL gcc version 11.3.1 20220421 (Red Hat 11.3.1-2) (GCC)
>>>>>>>> /git/perf-6.1.0-rc6/tools/perf/util/evsel.c: In function ‘evsel__rawptr’:
>>>>>>>> /git/perf-6.1.0-rc6/tools/perf/util/evsel.c:2787:36: error: ‘TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘TEP_FIELD_IS_FLAG’?
>>>>>>>>  2787 |                 if (field->flags & TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE)
>>>>>>>>       |                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>       |                                    TEP_FIELD_IS_FLAG
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I observed same issue as updated here:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/10476A85-3F75-4C91-AB5B-E5B136F31297@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Looks like TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE is not defined in header file of the system installed version.
>>>>>>> whereas it is there in header file in tools/lib/traceevent
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> # grep TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE /usr/include/traceevent/event-parse.h
>>>>>>> # grep TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE ../lib/traceevent/event-parse.h
>>>>>>>  TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE   = 256,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right, I had noticed that as well, so as a prep patch I'm adding the
>>>>>> patch below, before Ian's. Please check and provide an
>>>>>> Acked-by/Tested-by/Reviewed-by if possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I ended up with the one below, _after_ Ian's patch as I had some trouble grafting
>>>>> it before and had already tested it this way multiple times, I'm pushing
>>>>> this to tmp/perf.core.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Arnaldo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Arnaldo, Ian
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the fixes.
>>>> 
>>>> Since we changed “CONFIG_TRACEEVENT” to “CONFIG_LIBTRACEEVENT”,
>>>> below change is also needed in “arch/powerpc/util/Build”
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build
>>>> index 71e57f28abda..9889245c555c 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build
>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>>> perf-y += header.o
>>>> -perf-$(CONFIG_TRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>>> +perf-$(CONFIG_LIBTRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>>> perf-y += perf_regs.o
>>>> perf-y += mem-events.o
>>>> perf-y += sym-handling.o
>>>> 
>>>> With this change, I could successfully compile in these environment:
>>>> - Without libtraceevent-devel installed
>>>> - With libtraceevent-devel installed
>>>> - With “make NO_LIBTRACEEVENT=1”
>>>> 
>>>> With above change,
>>>> Acked-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> 
>>> I did that and the same thing for other architectures, thanks for
>>> testing!
>>> 
>>> I'll now give a try at implementing it without
>>> tools/build/feature/test-libtraceevent-tep_field_is_relative.c, using
>>> just the version of libtraceevent, as Ian suggested.
>>> 
>>> It would be great if you could test it again then,
>>> 
>> 
>> Sure Arnaldo, I will test with updated code.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Athira
> 
> 
> Thanks Athira and Arnaldo. It is a little strange to me to be using


Hi Arnaldo, Ian

Compile tested with updated tmp.perf/core and results are good

Thanks
Athira

> the shell to do a version number test. The intent was to be doing
> these in the code:
> #if LIBRTRACEEVENT_VERSION >= MAKE_LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION(1, 5, 0)
> vs
> ...
> LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION_WITH_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE := $(shell expr 1 \*
> 255 \* 255 + 5 \* 255 + 0) # 1.5.0
> ifeq ($(shell test $(LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION_CPP) -gt
> $(LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION_WITH_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE); echo $$?),0)
> CFLAGS += -DHAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE
> endif
> ...
> #ifdef HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE
> I'm a little selfish as I'm maintaining a bazel build and a single
> version number to maintain is easier than lots of HAVE_... tests. I'm
> happy to follow Arnaldo's lead. I think the test should also be
> greater-equal rather than greater-than:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/libtrace/libtraceevent.git/tree/include/traceevent/event-parse.h?h=libtraceevent-v1.5#n128
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> - Arnaldo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build
>>> index 88553c578ed7a1c4..78ef7115be3d91a7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build
>>> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ perf-y += machine.o
>>> perf-y += perf_regs.o
>>> perf-y += tsc.o
>>> perf-y += pmu.o
>>> -perf-$(CONFIG_TRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>> +perf-$(CONFIG_LIBTRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>> perf-$(CONFIG_DWARF)     += dwarf-regs.o
>>> perf-$(CONFIG_LOCAL_LIBUNWIND) += unwind-libunwind.o
>>> perf-$(CONFIG_LIBDW_DWARF_UNWIND) += unwind-libdw.o
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build
>>> index 71e57f28abdac7e9..9889245c555c4cfb 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/Build
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>> perf-y += header.o
>>> -perf-$(CONFIG_TRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>> +perf-$(CONFIG_LIBTRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>> perf-y += perf_regs.o
>>> perf-y += mem-events.o
>>> perf-y += sym-handling.o
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/Build b/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/Build
>>> index aa8a5f05c9cb4706..db68840869979f2c 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/Build
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/s390/util/Build
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>> perf-y += header.o
>>> -perf-$(CONFIG_TRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>> +perf-$(CONFIG_LIBTRACEEVENT) += kvm-stat.o
>>> perf-y += perf_regs.o
>>> 
>>> perf-$(CONFIG_DWARF) += dwarf-regs.o