Re: bogus values of variables in userspace probes

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:25:43PM +0100, Michael Petlan wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 16:16 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >  
> > > I have met this when writing new tests for perf-probe into the testsuite
> > > I had been speaking about some time ago [1]. But if needed, I may add it
> > > as a perf-test entry as you wish.
> > 
> > Please :-)
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> after a short discussion with Jiri Olsa I think that perf-test entry is
> not an ideal way to add a testcase such as this one. While perf-test
> aims on testing internal functions, here you need to use multiple tools
> in order to reproduce the issue:
> 
> 1) build a custom C example
> 2) add a userspace probe in the example
> 3) record some perf.data of it
> 4) analyze the perf.data by perf script
> 
> So in order to have this testcase in perf.test we'd need to call all the
> mentioned functionality within a C function. That's why I think that
> better approach is to use the shell based tests that I am collecting in
> my suite for now:
> 
> 
> # for running the particular testcase for this issue you just need to:
> git clone https://github.com/rfmvh/perftool-testsuite.git
> cd perftool-testsuite/base_probe
> ./setup.sh
> ./test_advanced.sh
> 
> 
> The overall approach of that testsuite is to test the tool as it is. So
> both approaches are necessary; both testing of the internal functions by
> perf-test and testing the tool as such from the outside by the suite.
> I am not against extending perf-test set, but I don't think this is the
> right case for it.

+1 ;-)

also I remember discussion about having your test suite
ported somewhere over perf sources.. is this still a plan?

thanks,
jirka