linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] perf report: Add latency and parallelism profiling

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: <CACT4Y+ZrFOWZodAM_Ay5hZRht=7D5KWcK7q4=DBpf-E2vs+JmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:44:24 +0100
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] perf report: Add latency and parallelism profiling

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 04:57, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:51:16AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 10:41 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 19:30, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > We traditionally didn't do it, but in general test coverage
> > > > of perf report is too low, so I would recommend to add some simple
> > > > test case in the perf test scripts.
> > >
> > > What of this is testable within the current testing framework?
> > > Also how do I run tests? I failed to figure it out.
> >
> > Often just having a test that ensure a command doesn't segfault is
> > progress :-) The shell tests Andi mentions are here:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/shell?h=perf-tools-next
> > There's no explicit `perf report` test there but maybe the annotate,
> > diff or record tests could give you some ideas.
>
> Well, we have. :)
>
>   $ ./perf test -vv report
>   116: perftool-testsuite_report:
>   --- start ---
>   test child forked, pid 109653
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: setup :: prepare the perf.data file
>   ## [ PASS ] ## perf_report :: setup SUMMARY
>   -- [ SKIP ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: help message :: testcase skipped
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: basic execution
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: number of samples
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: header
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: header timestamp
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: show CPU utilization
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: pid
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: non-existing symbol
>   -- [ PASS ] -- perf_report :: test_basic :: symbol filter
>   ## [ PASS ] ## perf_report :: test_basic SUMMARY
>   ---- end(0) ----
>   116: perftool-testsuite_report                                       : Ok
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung


Thanks, Namhyung, Andi, Ian, this is useful.

Added tests in v6:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/eb8506dfa5998da3b891ba3d36f7ed4a7db4ca2b.1738928210.git.dvyukov@google.com/T/#u