| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Z5LWkMPTu6mUtdJ-@google.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:53:52 -0800 From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> To: Howard Chu <howardchu95@...il.com> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] perf trace: Add more tests for BTF-augmented perf trace On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 04:19:35PM -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > Hello Namhyung, > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:28 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:57:23PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 04:52:08PM -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > > > > Hello Arnaldo, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 11:40 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > > > <acme@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 04:02:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:58:46AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 11:07:09AM -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > > > - Use if -f to check the existence of vmlinux BTF, and exit if it > > > > > > > > doesn't, so trace_test_string will not overwrite $err, and keep > > > > > > > > running the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > > - Add vmlinux BTF check, and skip the tests if it doesn't exist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v1, v2: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The previous version of the perf trace BTF general augmentation tests > > > > > > > > didn't pass Shellcheck (thanks to Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > > > > > > > <acme@...nel.org> for pointing this out), this version uses bash instead > > > > > > > > of POSIX shell to pass Shellcheck. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch series also adds documentation for the new option > > > > > > > > --force-btf, which is used in the tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/Zt9yiQq-n-W6I274@x1/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Howard Chu (2): > > > > > > > > perf trace: Add tests for BTF general augmentation > > > > > > > > perf docs: Add documentation for --force-btf option > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, applied to perf-tools-next, > > > > > > > > > > It fails when running in parallel mode, sometimes: > > > > > > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! > > > > > > > > > > Then: > > > > > > > > > > root@...ber:~# perf stat --null -r 10 perf test "BTF general" > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > 109: perf trace BTF general tests : Ok > > > > > > > > > > Performance counter stats for 'perf test BTF general' (10 runs): > > > > > > > > > > 2.148 +- 0.293 seconds time elapsed ( +- 13.63% ) > > > > > > > > > > root@...ber:~# > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So its not just when running in paralell, anyway, its merged, we can go > > > > > on from what we got there. > > > > > > > > It never fails on my machine, I think the reason is my machine is not > > > > fully-loaded. Can you please run > > > > ``` > > > > perf stat --null -r 10 perf test -vv "BTF general" > > > > ``` > > > > And provide the output? > > > > > > root@...ber:~# grep -m1 'model name' /proc/cpuinfo > > > model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-14700K > > > root@...ber:~# > > > > > > root@...ber:~# perf stat --null -r 10 perf test -vv "BTF general" > > > 106: perf trace BTF general tests: > > > --- start --- > > > test child forked, pid 47824 > > > Checking if vmlinux BTF exists > > > Testing perf trace's string augmentation > > > String augmentation test failed > > > ---- end(-1) ---- > > > 106: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! > > > 106: perf trace BTF general tests: > > > --- start --- > > > test child forked, pid 47842 > > > Checking if vmlinux BTF exists > > > Testing perf trace's string augmentation > > > String augmentation test failed > > > ---- end(-1) ---- > > > 106: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! > > > ... > > > > I also see the failure on not fully-loaded machines (both Intel and > > AMD). > > > > $ sudo ./perf test -v BTF > > --- start --- > > test child forked, pid 525025 > > Checking if vmlinux BTF exists > > Testing perf trace's string augmentation > > String augmentation test failed > > ---- end(-1) ---- > > 106: perf trace BTF general tests : FAILED! > > > > Thanks, > > Namhyung > > > > Just wondering, did you and Arnaldo apply this patch: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20241213023047.541218-1-howardchu95@gmail.com/ I don't think we applied it, will add to perf-tools. > > This seems to solve the problem for me... But I'm not sure if it fixes the problem. IIUC the patch fixes the loading problem. And for some reason, I don't see the problem any more. But I remember this sometimes happened in the past. Thanks, Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists