Re: perf tool: About tests debug level

[John Garry]

On 22/06/2021 06:04, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > ---- end ----
> > Parse and process metrics: FAILED!
> >
> > Note that the "FAILED" messages from the test code come from pr_debug().
> >
> > In a way, I feel that pr_debug()/err from the test is more important
> > than pr_debug() from the core code (when running a test).
> >
> > Any opinion on this or how to improve (if anyone agrees with me)? Or am
> > I missing something? Or is it not so important?
> Hi John,

Hi Ian,

> I think the issue is that in the parsing you don't know it's broken
> until something goes wrong. Putting everything on pr_err would cause
> spam in the not broken case.

Right, I would not suggest using pr_err everywhere.

> Improving the parsing error handling is a
> big task with lex and yacc to some extent getting in the way. Perhaps
> a middle way is to have a parameter to the parser that logs more, and
> recursively call this in the parser when parsing fails. I guess there
> is also a danger of a performance hit.

So I am thinking that for running a test, -v means different levels logs 
for test code and for core (non-test code). For example, -v prints 
pr_warn() and higher for test logs, but nothing for core logs. And then 
-vv for running a test gives pr_debug and above for test logs, and 
pr_warn and above for core logs. Or something like that.

Maybe that is not a good idea. But I'm just saying that it's hard to 
debug currently at -v for tests.

Thanks,
John