Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Date: Wed Dec 09 2020 - 12:50:27 EST

Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> On 12/8/20 8:13 PM, Thomas Richter wrote:
> > On 12/7/20 5:35 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:04:53PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> > > > On 11/19/20 7:20 PM, Kajol Jain wrote:
> > > > > Commit ed21d6d7c48e6e ("perf tests: Add test for PE binary format support")
> > > > > adds a WINDOWS EXE file named tests/pe-file.exe, which is
> > > > > examined by the test case 'PE file support'. As powerpc doesn't support
> > > > > it, we are skipping this test.

> > > > > Result in power9 platform before this patach:
> > > > > [command]# ./perf test -F 68
> > > > > 68: PE file support : Failed!

> > > > > Result in power9 platform after this patch:
> > > > > [command]# ./perf test -F 68
> > > > > 68: PE file support : Skip

> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> > > > Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> > > But why is it failing? I.e. what is that

> > > perf test -v -F 68

> > > outputs?

> > > Using 'perf report' on a perf.data file containing samples in such
> > > binaries, collected on x86 should work on whatever workstation a
> > > developer uses.

> > > Say, on a MacBook aarch64 one can look at a perf.data file collected on
> > > a x86_64 system where Wine running a PE binary was present.

> > What is the distro you are using?
> > I observed the same issue on s390 but this was fixed for fedora33 somehow.
> > The error just went away after a dnf update....

> > [root@m35lp76 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release
> > Fedora release 33 (Thirty Three)
> > [root@m35lp76 perf]# ./perf test -F 68
> > 68: PE file support : Ok
> > [root@m35lp76 perf]#

> > However on my fedora32 machine it still fails:
> > [root@t35lp46 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release
> > Fedora release 32 (Thirty Two)
> > [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68
> > 68: PE file support : FAILED!
> > [root@t35lp46 perf]#
> >
> > Note that I am running the same kernel on both machines: linux 5.10.0rc7 downloaded
> > this morning.
> >
>
> Ok that's interesting. I don't see that on powerpc.
>
> Fedora 32 with 5.10.0-rc2+ kernel:
>
> $ ./perf test -vv -F 68
> 68: PE file support :
> --- start ---
> filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file.
> FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id
> ---- end ----
> PE file support: FAILED!
>
> Fedora 33 with 5.10.0-rc3 kernel:
>
> $ ./perf test -vv -F 68
> 68: PE file support :
> --- start ---
> filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file.
> FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id
> ---- end ----
> PE file support: FAILED!
>
> Ubuntu 18.04.5 with 4.15.0-126-generic kernel:
>
> $ ./perf test -vv -F 68
> 68: PE file support :
> --- start ---
> filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file.
> FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:41 Failed to read build_id
> ---- end ----
> PE file support: FAILED!
>
>
> I assumed bfd is not capable to parse PE files on powerpc. Though,
> I didn't check it in more detail. I'll look into it tomorrow.

Humm, so this is something related to installation? I.e. that
pe-file.exe isn't being found...

It first assumes that the developers are in the tools/perf/ directory,
can you please add the patch below and see if it helps?

Without it and without having actually installed perf (for instance with
'make -C tools/perf install' I get:

[acme@five perf]$ perf test -F 68
68: PE file support : FAILED!
[acme@five perf]$

[acme@five perf]$ perf test -F -v 68
Couldn't bump rlimit(MEMLOCK), failures may take place when creating BPF maps, etc
68: PE file support :
--- start ---
FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id
---- end ----
PE file support: FAILED!
[acme@five perf]$

If I go to tools/perf:

[acme@five perf]$ perf test 68
68: PE file support : Ok
[acme@five perf]$

With the patch below it works both at the top level dir and at
tools/perf/ on a system without a perf installation containing these
PE files.

We have this in tools/perf/Makefile.perf:

install-tests: all install-gtk
$(call QUIET_INSTALL, tests) \
$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \
$(INSTALL) tests/attr.py '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \
$(INSTALL) tests/pe-file.exe* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ <---------------------------------------------
$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \
$(INSTALL) tests/attr/* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \
$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \
$(INSTALL) tests/shell/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \
$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib'; \
$(INSTALL) tests/shell/lib/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib'

install-bin: install-tools install-tests install-traceevent-plugins

- Arnaldo

diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c
index 58b90c42eb38c1b9..a380d31b645b58dd 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c
@@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ int test__pe_file_parsing(struct test *test __maybe_unused,
if (!lstat("./tests", &st))
return run_dir("./tests");

+ if (!lstat("./tools/perf/tests", &st))
+ return run_dir("./tools/perf/tests");
+
/* Then installed path. */
snprintf(path_dir, PATH_MAX, "%s/tests", get_argv_exec_path());