[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZOY6F1+o05kHOwMi@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:55:51 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
lkp@...el.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [perf-tools-next:tmp.perf-tools-next] [perf dlfilter]
f178a76b05: perf-sanity-tests.dlfilter_C_API.fail
Em Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 06:37:49PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
> On 23/08/23 17:57, kernel test robot wrote:
> > kernel test robot noticed "perf-sanity-tests.dlfilter_C_API.fail" on:
> > commit: f178a76b054fd046d212c3c67745146ff191a443 ("perf dlfilter: Add a test for resolve_address()")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git tmp.perf-tools-next
> > [test failed on linux-next/master 28c736b0e92e11bfe2b9997688213dc43cb22182]
> We sometimes make a test for an issue then fix it, so the new test fails,
> but is fixed in a subsequent patch. If you read the commit it says as much:
> commit f178a76b054fd046d212c3c67745146ff191a443
> Author: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> Date: Mon Jul 31 12:18:55 2023 +0300
>
> perf dlfilter: Add a test for resolve_address()
>
> Extend the "dlfilter C API" test to test
> perf_dlfilter_fns.resolve_address(). The test currently fails, but passes
> after a subsequent patch.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230731091857.10681-1-adrian.hunter@intel.com
> Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> The fix is:
> 42c6dd9d23019ff339d0aca80a444eb71087050e perf dlfilter: Initialize addr_location before passing it to thread__find_symbol_fb()
I wonder if we can automate this aspect of testing, by adding some
markup that states that this _is supposed_ to fail, and if it doesn't,
then we get a notification. It should probably also means that the next
cset will make the test pass, ideas?
- Arnaldo
> >
> > in testcase: perf-sanity-tests
> > version: perf-x86_64-00c7b5f4ddc5-1_20230402
> > with following parameters:
> >
> > perf_compiler: gcc
> >
> >
> >
> > compiler: gcc-12
> > test machine: 224 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8480+ (Sapphire Rapids) with 256G memory
> >
> > (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202308232146.94d82cb4-oliver.sang@intel.com
> >
> >
> >
> > 66: Convert perf time to TSC :
> > 66.1: TSC support : Ok
> > 66.2: Perf time to TSC : Ok
> > 67: dlfilter C API : FAILED! <---
> > 68: Sigtrap : Ok
> >
> >
> >
> > The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230823/202308232146.94d82cb4-oliver.sang@intel.com
> >
> >
> >
>
--
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists