Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] perf test: Test pmu-events aliases

[Jiri Olsa]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 09:24:19AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 19/03/2020 18:36, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:07:30PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:41:04PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > > On 17/03/2020 16:20, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:02:19PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -36,6 +51,8 @@ static struct perf_pmu_test_event test_cpu_events[] = {
> > > > > >    			.desc = "Number of segment register loads",
> > > > > >    			.topic = "other",
> > > > > >    		},
> > > > > > +		.alias_str = "umask=0x80,(null)=0x30d40,event=0x6",
> > 
> > > > > ah so we are using other pmus because of the format definitions
> > 
> > > > > why is there the '(null)' in there?
> > 
> > > > Well this is just coming from the generated alias string in the pmu code,
> > > > and it does not seem to be handling "period" argument properly. It needs to
> > > > be checked.
> > > nice, it found first issue already ;-)
> 
> thanks
> 
> > 
> > Applied the series to perf/core, good job! What about the fix for the
> > above (null) problem?
> 
> So I had started to look at that, but then the codepath lead into the lex
> parsing, which I am not familiar with.
> 
> So from when we parse the event terms in parse_events_terms(), we get 3x
> terms:
> config=umask, then newval=umask=0x80
> confg=(null), then newval=umask=0x80,(null)=x030d40
> config=event, then newval=umask=0x80,(null)=x030d40,event=0x6
> 
> I can continue to look. Maybe jirka has an idea on this and what happens in
> the lex parsing.

yep, I plan to check on it

jirka