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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b091546-8178-470b-8904-dc948fd9aa11@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 10:55:44 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 acme@...nel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, james.clark@...aro.org,
 agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com,
 hca@...ux.ibm.com, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3] perf test: Change event in perf test 114 perf
 record test subtest test_leader_sampling



On 2025-02-03 10:42 p.m., Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Add Kan and Dapeng to CC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:27:56AM +0100, Thomas Richter wrote:
>> On s390 the event instructions can not be used for recording.
>> This event is only supported by perf stat.
>>
>> Change the event from instructions to cycles in
>> subtest test_leader_sampling.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Suggested-by: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 10 +++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
>> index fe2d05bcbb1f..ba8d873d3ca7 100755
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
>> @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ test_cgroup() {
>>  
>>  test_leader_sampling() {
>>    echo "Basic leader sampling test"
>> -  if ! perf record -o "${perfdata}" -e "{instructions,instructions}:Su" -- \
>> +  if ! perf record -o "${perfdata}" -e "{cycles,cycles}:Su" -- \
>>      perf test -w brstack 2> /dev/null


As a non-precise test, using cycles instead should be fine. But we
should never use it for precise test, e.g., with p. Because cycles is a
non-precise event. It would not surprise me if there is a skid when
reading two cycles events at the point when the event overflow occurs.

Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks,
Kan

>>    then
>>      echo "Leader sampling [Failed record]"
>> @@ -243,15 +243,15 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
>>    while IFS= read -r line
>>    do
>>      # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
>> -    instructions=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="instructions:") print $(i-1)}')
>> -    if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${instructions}x != ${prev_instructions}x ]
>> +    cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
>> +    if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
>>      then
>> -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent instructions count]"
>> +      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
>>        err=1
>>        return
>>      fi
>>      index=$(($index+1))
>> -    prev_instructions=$instructions
>> +    prev_cycles=$cycles
>>    done < $script_output
>>    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
>>  }
>> -- 
>> 2.48.1
>>


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ