linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Make leader sampling test work without branch event

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fUDnBii8T2hH3o+J=DXMe7xxHXP7Kno5fz4OjBestObwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 23:08:40 -0800
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, 
	James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, 
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Veronika Molnarova <vmolnaro@...hat.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Make leader sampling test work without branch event

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 11:28 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:54:43AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 8:16 AM James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Arm a57 only has speculative branch events so this test fails there. The
> > > test doesn't depend on branch instructions so change it to instructions
> > > which is pretty much guaranteed to be everywhere. The
> > > test_branch_counter() test above already tests for the existence of the
> > > branches event and skips if its not present.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
>
> Thanks, applied to perf-tools-next,

Rebasing on perf-tools-next I see this failing on my Intel Tigerlake
laptop. An example script output for:
```
 perf record -o "${perfdata}" -e "{instructions,instructions}:Su"
```
is:
```
            perf  352917 49604.160314:          3 instructions:
7f155caca323 [unknown]
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.160314:          3 instructions:
7f155caca323 [unknown]
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.160317:         18 instructions:
7f155cacaf3d _dl_start+0x3d
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.160317:         18 instructions:
7f155cacaf3d _dl_start+0x3d
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.160319:          3 instructions:
7f155cacaf44 _dl_start+0x44
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.160319:          3 instructions:
7f155cacaf44 _dl_start+0x44
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.161099:        120 instructions:
ffffffff8ce00080 [unknown] ([unknown])
            perf  352917 49604.161099:     181013 instructions:
ffffffff8ce00080 [unknown] ([unknown])
            perf  352917 49604.161115:       8811 instructions:
7f155cad22d0 strcmp+0x8b0
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.161115:       8811 instructions:
7f155cad22d0 strcmp+0x8b0
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.161130:      10483 instructions:
7f155caba508 _dl_new_object+0x198
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.161130:      10483 instructions:
7f155caba508 _dl_new_object+0x198
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.165156:     177355 instructions:
7f155cab90a4 _dl_lookup_symbol_x+0x44
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
            perf  352917 49604.165156:   13313598 instructions:
7f155cab90a4 _dl_lookup_symbol_x+0x44
(/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2)
...
```

Dapeng/Kan, any thoughts why the counts don't match for instructions
but did for branches?

Thanks,
Ian