On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 6:43 AM John Garry<john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20/10/2020 17:53, Ian Rogers wrote:The test itself shouldn't have changed, but the json files parsed by
Just wondering, was a patch ever submitted for this? Something stillThanks for taking a look John. If you want help you can send theHi Ian,
output of "perf test 67 -vvv" to me. It is possible Broadwell has
similar glitches in the json to Skylake. I tested the original test on
server parts as I can access them as cloud machines.
I will have a look, but I was hoping that Ian would have a proper fixI still have these changes to look at in my inbox but I'm assuming
for this on top of ("perf metricgroup: Fix uncore metric expressions"),
which now looks to be merged.
they're good:-) Sorry for not getting to them, but it's good they are
merged.
Checked in upstream kernel with your fix patch, in powerpc also test case 67 is passing.
But I am getting issue in test 10 for powerpc
[command]# ./perf test 10
10: PMU events :
10.1: PMU event table sanity : Ok
10.2: PMU event map aliases : Ok
10.3: Parsing of PMU event table metrics : Skip (some metrics failed)
10.4: Parsing of PMU event table metrics with fake PMUs : FAILED!
Was debugging it, issue is with commit e1c92a7fbbc5 perf tests: Add another metric parsing test.
So, there we are passing different runtime parameter value in "expr__find_other and expr__parse"
in function `metric_parse_fake`. I believe we need to send same value.
I will send fix patch for the same.
broken? I can't see any recent relevant changes to tests/pmu-events.c
jevents and turned into C code that the test exercises should have
changed. Jin Yao has sent two patch sets fixing a metric issue on SKL
(Skylake non-server) that should hopefully fix the issue there - I'll
check the status on these. Are you testing on Skylake?