Re: [PATCH v1 5/8] perf test: Tag parallel failing shell tests with "(exclusive)"

[James Clark]

On 11/10/2024 11:01 am, James Clark wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 8:35 am, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > Some shell tests compete for resources and so can't run with other
> > tests, tag such tests.  The "(exclusive)" stems from shared/exclusive
> > to describe how the tests run as if holding a lock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/perftool-testsuite_report.sh | 2 +-
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh                    | 2 +-
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/record_lbr.sh                | 2 +-
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/record_offcpu.sh             | 2 +-
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/stat_all_pmu.sh              | 2 +-
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/test_intel_pt.sh             | 2 +-
> >   tools/perf/tests/shell/test_stat_intel_tpebs.sh     | 2 +-
> >   7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> The following ones would also need to be marked as exclusive, not sure 
> if you can include those here or you want me to send a patch:
>
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/coresight/asm_pure_loop.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/coresight/memcpy_thread_16k_10.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/coresight/thread_loop_check_tid_10.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/coresight/thread_loop_check_tid_2.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/coresight/unroll_loop_thread_10.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/test_arm_coresight.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/test_arm_coresight_disasm.sh
>   tools/perf/tests/shell/test_arm_spe.sh
>
> In theory all tests using probes would also need to be exclusive because 
> they install and delete probes globally. In practice I don't think I saw 
> any failures, whether that's just luck or because of some skips I'm not 
> sure.
>
> And this one fails consistently in parallel mode on Arm:
>
>    22: Number of exit events of a simple workload
>      : FAILED!
>
> But it's a C test so I assume there isn't an exclusive mechanism to skip 
> it? It doesn't look like it should be affected though, so maybe we could 
> leave it failing as a real bug.

Oh I see it says in the cover letter it can be set for C tests. But can 
that be done through all the existing TEST_CASE() etc macros?