[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTMBLllcYRoIF8E1@surya>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:37:34 -0700
From: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
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@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Wang ShaoBo <bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] perf parse-events: Remove BPF event support
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 05:39:25PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 03:48:56PM -0700, Manu Bretelle escreveu:
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 06:08:33PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > I wonder how to improve the current situation to detect these kinds of
> > > problems in the future, i.e. how to notice that some file needed by some
> > > Makefile, etc got removed or that some feature test fails because some
> > > change in the test .c files makes them fail and thus activates fallbacks
> > > like the one above :-\
>
> > I think it is tricky. Specifically to this situation, some CI could try to build
> > the different combinaison of bpftool and check the features through the build
> > `bpftool --version`.
>
> Right, if the right packages are installed, we expect to get some
> bpftool build output, if that changes after some patch, flag it.
>
> Does bpftool have something like:
>
> ⬢[acme@...lbox perf-tools-next]$ perf version --build-options
> perf version 6.6.rc1.ga8dd62d05e56
> dwarf: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
> dwarf_getlocations: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_GETLOCATIONS_SUPPORT
> syscall_table: [ on ] # HAVE_SYSCALL_TABLE_SUPPORT
> libbfd: [ OFF ] # HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT
> debuginfod: [ on ] # HAVE_DEBUGINFOD_SUPPORT
> libelf: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBELF_SUPPORT
> libnuma: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> numa_num_possible_cpus: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
> libperl: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPERL_SUPPORT
> libpython: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPYTHON_SUPPORT
> libslang: [ on ] # HAVE_SLANG_SUPPORT
> libcrypto: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBCRYPTO_SUPPORT
> libunwind: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBUNWIND_SUPPORT
> libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on ] # HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT
> zlib: [ on ] # HAVE_ZLIB_SUPPORT
> lzma: [ on ] # HAVE_LZMA_SUPPORT
> get_cpuid: [ on ] # HAVE_AUXTRACE_SUPPORT
> bpf: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> aio: [ on ] # HAVE_AIO_SUPPORT
> zstd: [ on ] # HAVE_ZSTD_SUPPORT
> libpfm4: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBPFM
> libtraceevent: [ on ] # HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT
> bpf_skeletons: [ on ] # HAVE_BPF_SKEL
> ⬢[acme@...lbox perf-tools-next]$
>
> ?
>
It has
$ ./tools/bpf/bpftool/bpftool --version -j | jq .features
{
"libbfd": false,
"llvm": true,
"skeletons": true,
"bootstrap": false
}
Maybe Quentin knows of something else.
> > This is actually a test that I run internally to make sure our build has some
> > feature enabled.
> > This is actually tested by bpftool in the GH CI:
> > https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yaml#L62
>
> > As a matter of fact, it would not have been detected because that CI uses a
> > different Makefile.feature.
>
> > Quentin and I were talking offline how we could improve bpftool CI at diff time.
> > This is an example where it would have helped :)
> >
> > > I'll get this merged in my perf-tools-fixes-for-v6.6 that I'll submit
> > > tomorrow to Linus, thanks for reporting!
> > >
> > > I'll add your:
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@...il.com>
> > >
> > > And:
> > >
> > > Fixes: 56b11a2126bf2f42 ("perf bpf: Remove support for embedding clang for compiling BPF events (-e foo.c)")
> > >
> > > Ok?
>
> > SGTM. Thanks for the quick turnaround.
>
> > Reviewed-by: Manu Bretelle <chantr4@...il.com>
>
> You're welcome, thanks for the detailed report, the patch was just sent
> to Linus.
>
> - Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists