[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231125030529.GB178091@leoy-huanghe>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2023 11:05:29 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To: Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Cc: Nick Forrington <nick.forrington@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
vmolnaro@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Remove atomics from test_loop to avoid test
failures
Hi all,
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 08:57:52PM +0100, Michael Petlan wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Nick Forrington wrote:
> > The current use of atomics can lead to test failures, as tests (such as
> > tests/shell/record.sh) search for samples with "test_loop" as the
> > top-most stack frame, but find frames related to the atomic operation
> > (e.g. __aarch64_ldadd4_relax).
I am confused by above description. As I went through the script
record.sh, which is the only test invoking the program 'test_loop',
but I don't find any test is related with stack frame.
Do I miss anything? I went through record.sh but no clue why the
failure is caused by stack frame. All the testings use command:
if ! perf report -i "${perfdata}" -q | grep -q "${testsym}"
...
fi
@Nick, could you narrow down which specific test case causing the
failure.
[...]
> I believe that it was there to prevent the compiler to optimize the loop
> out or some reason like that. Hopefully, it will work even without that
> on all architectures with all compilers that are used for building perf...
Agreed.
As said above, I'd like to step back a bit for making clear what's the
exactly failure caused by the program.
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists