All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
@ 2023-01-31 13:50 ` Athira Rajeev
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Athira Rajeev @ 2023-01-31 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: acme, jolsa
  Cc: ak, namhyung, irogers, james.clark, mpe, linux-perf-users,
	linuxppc-dev, maddy, rnsastry, kjain, disgoel

"bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
support as below:

 # ./perf test 36
 36: BPF filter                                                      :
 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!

The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.

Detailed logs:
	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"

	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
	Failed to add events selected by BPF

The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
"tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.

With the change,

	# ./perf test 36
 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)

Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 #define NR_ITERS       111
 #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
 
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 #include <linux/bpf.h>
 #include <bpf/bpf.h>
 
@@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
 static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
 {
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	return test__bpf(0);
 #else
-	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
+	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
 	return TEST_SKIP;
 #endif
 }
@@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
 {
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	return test__bpf(1);
 #else
-	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
+	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
 	return TEST_SKIP;
 #endif
 }
@@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
 {
-#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	return test__bpf(2);
 #else
-	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
+	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
 	return TEST_SKIP;
 #endif
 }
 
 
 static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
@@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
 #endif
 #else
-	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
-	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
-	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
+	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
+	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
+	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
 #endif
 	{ .name = NULL, }
 };
-- 
2.39.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
@ 2023-01-31 13:50 ` Athira Rajeev
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Athira Rajeev @ 2023-01-31 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: acme, jolsa
  Cc: irogers, ak, rnsastry, linux-perf-users, maddy, james.clark,
	kjain, namhyung, disgoel, linuxppc-dev

"bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
support as below:

 # ./perf test 36
 36: BPF filter                                                      :
 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!

The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.

Detailed logs:
	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"

	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
	Failed to add events selected by BPF

The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
"tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.

With the change,

	# ./perf test 36
 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)

Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 #define NR_ITERS       111
 #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
 
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 #include <linux/bpf.h>
 #include <bpf/bpf.h>
 
@@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
 static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
 {
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	return test__bpf(0);
 #else
-	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
+	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
 	return TEST_SKIP;
 #endif
 }
@@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
 {
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	return test__bpf(1);
 #else
-	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
+	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
 	return TEST_SKIP;
 #endif
 }
@@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
 {
-#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	return test__bpf(2);
 #else
-	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
+	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
 	return TEST_SKIP;
 #endif
 }
 
 
 static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
-#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
+#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
@@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
 #endif
 #else
-	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
-	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
-	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
+	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
+	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
+	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
 #endif
 	{ .name = NULL, }
 };
-- 
2.39.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
  2023-01-31 13:50 ` Athira Rajeev
@ 2023-02-02  0:57   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2023-02-02  0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Athira Rajeev
  Cc: jolsa, ak, namhyung, irogers, james.clark, mpe, linux-perf-users,
	linuxppc-dev, maddy, rnsastry, kjain, disgoel

Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> support as below:
> 
>  # ./perf test 36
>  36: BPF filter                                                      :
>  36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>  36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>  36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
> 
> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.

Thanks, applied.

- Arnaldo

 
> Detailed logs:
> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
> 
> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
> 
> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
> 
> With the change,
> 
> 	# ./perf test 36
>  	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>  	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>  	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>  	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>  #define NR_ITERS       111
>  #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>  
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  #include <linux/bpf.h>
>  #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>  
> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>  static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>  {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	return test__bpf(0);
>  #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>  	return TEST_SKIP;
>  #endif
>  }
> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>  {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	return test__bpf(1);
>  #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>  	return TEST_SKIP;
>  #endif
>  }
> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>  {
> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	return test__bpf(2);
>  #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>  	return TEST_SKIP;
>  #endif
>  }
>  
>  
>  static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>  	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>  			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>  	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>  #endif
>  #else
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>  #endif
>  	{ .name = NULL, }
>  };
> -- 
> 2.39.0
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
@ 2023-02-02  0:57   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2023-02-02  0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Athira Rajeev
  Cc: irogers, ak, rnsastry, linux-perf-users, maddy, james.clark,
	jolsa, kjain, namhyung, disgoel, linuxppc-dev

Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> support as below:
> 
>  # ./perf test 36
>  36: BPF filter                                                      :
>  36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>  36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>  36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
> 
> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.

Thanks, applied.

- Arnaldo

 
> Detailed logs:
> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
> 
> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
> 
> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
> 
> With the change,
> 
> 	# ./perf test 36
>  	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>  	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>  	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>  	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>  #define NR_ITERS       111
>  #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>  
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  #include <linux/bpf.h>
>  #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>  
> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>  static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>  {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	return test__bpf(0);
>  #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>  	return TEST_SKIP;
>  #endif
>  }
> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>  {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	return test__bpf(1);
>  #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>  	return TEST_SKIP;
>  #endif
>  }
> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>  				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>  {
> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	return test__bpf(2);
>  #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>  	return TEST_SKIP;
>  #endif
>  }
>  
>  
>  static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>  	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>  	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>  			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>  	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>  #endif
>  #else
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>  #endif
>  	{ .name = NULL, }
>  };
> -- 
> 2.39.0
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
  2023-02-02  0:57   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2023-02-06  3:57     ` Athira Rajeev
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Athira Rajeev @ 2023-02-06  3:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  Cc: Jiri Olsa, Andi Kleen, Namhyung Kim, Ian Rogers, James Clark,
	Michael Ellerman, linux-perf-users, linuxppc-dev, maddy,
	Nageswara Sastry, Kajol Jain, disgoel



> On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
>> support as below:
>> 
>> # ./perf test 36
>> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
>> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>> 
>> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
>> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
> 
> Thanks, applied.

Hi,

Thanks for checking

Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?

Athira 
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> 
>> Detailed logs:
>> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>> 
>> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
>> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
>> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>> 
>> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
>> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
>> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
>> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>> 
>> With the change,
>> 
>> 	# ./perf test 36
>> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>> #define NR_ITERS       111
>> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>> 
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> #include <linux/bpf.h>
>> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>> 
>> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(0);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(1);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(2);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
>> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>> #endif
>> #else
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> #endif
>> 	{ .name = NULL, }
>> };
>> -- 
>> 2.39.0
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
@ 2023-02-06  3:57     ` Athira Rajeev
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Athira Rajeev @ 2023-02-06  3:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  Cc: Ian Rogers, Andi Kleen, Nageswara Sastry, linux-perf-users,
	maddy, James Clark, Jiri Olsa, Kajol Jain, Namhyung Kim, disgoel,
	linuxppc-dev



> On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
>> support as below:
>> 
>> # ./perf test 36
>> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
>> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>> 
>> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
>> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
> 
> Thanks, applied.

Hi,

Thanks for checking

Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?

Athira 
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> 
>> Detailed logs:
>> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>> 
>> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
>> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
>> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>> 
>> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
>> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
>> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
>> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>> 
>> With the change,
>> 
>> 	# ./perf test 36
>> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>> #define NR_ITERS       111
>> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>> 
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> #include <linux/bpf.h>
>> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>> 
>> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(0);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(1);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(2);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
>> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>> #endif
>> #else
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> #endif
>> 	{ .name = NULL, }
>> };
>> -- 
>> 2.39.0
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
  2023-01-31 13:50 ` Athira Rajeev
  (?)
  (?)
@ 2023-02-06  9:20 ` Disha Goel
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Disha Goel @ 2023-02-06  9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Athira Rajeev, acme, jolsa
  Cc: irogers, ak, rnsastry, linux-perf-users, maddy, james.clark,
	kjain, namhyung, linuxppc-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5505 bytes --]

On 1/31/23 7:20 PM, Athira Rajeev wrote:

> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> support as below:
>
>   # ./perf test 36
>   36: BPF filter                                                      :
>   36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>   36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>   36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>
> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
>
> Detailed logs:
> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>
> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>
> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>
> With the change,
>
> 	# ./perf test 36
>   	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>   	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>   	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>   	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>
> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev<atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Tested the patch on powerpc, perf bpf test skips when libtraceevent-devel package is not installed.

  36: BPF filter                                                      :
  36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
  36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
  36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)

Tested-by: Disha Goel<disgoel@linux.ibm.com>

> ---
>   tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>   #define NR_ITERS       111
>   #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>   
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   #include <linux/bpf.h>
>   #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>   
> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>   static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>   {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	return test__bpf(0);
>   #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>   	return TEST_SKIP;
>   #endif
>   }
> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>   {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	return test__bpf(1);
>   #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>   	return TEST_SKIP;
>   #endif
>   }
> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>   				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>   {
> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	return test__bpf(2);
>   #else
> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>   	return TEST_SKIP;
>   #endif
>   }
>   
>   
>   static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>   	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>   	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>   			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>   	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>   #endif
>   #else
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>   #endif
>   	{ .name = NULL, }
>   };

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5997 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
  2023-02-06  3:57     ` Athira Rajeev
@ 2023-02-06 14:40       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2023-02-06 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Athira Rajeev
  Cc: Jiri Olsa, Andi Kleen, Namhyung Kim, Ian Rogers, James Clark,
	Michael Ellerman, linux-perf-users, linuxppc-dev, maddy,
	Nageswara Sastry, Kajol Jain, disgoel

Em Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 09:27:13AM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> > On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> >> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> >> support as below:
> >> 
> >> # ./perf test 36
> >> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
> >> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
> >> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
> >> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
> >> 
> >> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> >> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
> > 
> > Thanks, applied.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for checking
> 
> Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?

I thought I had this in :-\ Now its in tmp.perf/core.

- Arnaldo
 
> Athira 
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> > 
> > 
> >> Detailed logs:
> >> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
> >> 
> >> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> >> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> >> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
> >> 
> >> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> >> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> >> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> >> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
> >> 
> >> With the change,
> >> 
> >> 	# ./perf test 36
> >> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
> >> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> >> #define NR_ITERS       111
> >> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
> >> 
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> >> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
> >> 
> >> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
> >> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(0);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(1);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(2);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> 
> >> 
> >> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
> >> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
> >> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> >> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> >> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> #endif
> >> #else
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> #endif
> >> 	{ .name = NULL, }
> >> };
> >> -- 
> >> 2.39.0
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
@ 2023-02-06 14:40       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2023-02-06 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Athira Rajeev
  Cc: Ian Rogers, Andi Kleen, Nageswara Sastry, linux-perf-users,
	maddy, James Clark, Jiri Olsa, Kajol Jain, Namhyung Kim, disgoel,
	linuxppc-dev

Em Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 09:27:13AM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> > On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> >> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> >> support as below:
> >> 
> >> # ./perf test 36
> >> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
> >> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
> >> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
> >> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
> >> 
> >> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> >> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
> > 
> > Thanks, applied.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for checking
> 
> Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?

I thought I had this in :-\ Now its in tmp.perf/core.

- Arnaldo
 
> Athira 
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> > 
> > 
> >> Detailed logs:
> >> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
> >> 
> >> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> >> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> >> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
> >> 
> >> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> >> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> >> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> >> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
> >> 
> >> With the change,
> >> 
> >> 	# ./perf test 36
> >> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
> >> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> >> #define NR_ITERS       111
> >> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
> >> 
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> >> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
> >> 
> >> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
> >> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(0);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(1);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(2);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> 
> >> 
> >> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
> >> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
> >> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> >> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> >> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> #endif
> >> #else
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> #endif
> >> 	{ .name = NULL, }
> >> };
> >> -- 
> >> 2.39.0
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
  2023-02-06 14:40       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2023-02-07  5:15         ` Athira Rajeev
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Athira Rajeev @ 2023-02-07  5:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  Cc: Ian Rogers, Andi Kleen, Nageswara Sastry, linux-perf-users,
	maddy, James Clark, Jiri Olsa, Kajol Jain, Namhyung Kim, disgoel,
	linuxppc-dev



> On 06-Feb-2023, at 8:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Em Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 09:27:13AM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>>> On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>>>> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
>>>> support as below:
>>>> 
>>>> # ./perf test 36
>>>> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
>>>> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>>>> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>>>> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>>>> 
>>>> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
>>>> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, applied.
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for checking
>> 
>> Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?
> 
> I thought I had this in :-\ Now its in tmp.perf/core.
> 
> - Arnaldo

Hi Arnaldo, 

Thanks for picking it.

Athira
> 
>> Athira 
>>> 
>>> - Arnaldo
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Detailed logs:
>>>> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>>>> 
>>>> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
>>>> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
>>>> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>>>> 
>>>> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
>>>> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
>>>> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
>>>> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>>>> 
>>>> With the change,
>>>> 
>>>> 	# ./perf test 36
>>>> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>>>> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>>>> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>>>> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>>>> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>>>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>>>> #define NR_ITERS       111
>>>> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>>>> 
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> #include <linux/bpf.h>
>>>> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>>>> 
>>>> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>>>> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>>>> {
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	return test__bpf(0);
>>>> #else
>>>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>>>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>>>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>>>> {
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	return test__bpf(1);
>>>> #else
>>>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>>>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>>>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>>>> {
>>>> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	return test__bpf(2);
>>>> #else
>>>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>>>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>>>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>>>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>>>> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
>>>> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>>>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>>>> #endif
>>>> #else
>>>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
>>>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
>>>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>>>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>>>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>>>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>>>> #endif
>>>> 	{ .name = NULL, }
>>>> };
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.39.0
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> - Arnaldo
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support
@ 2023-02-07  5:15         ` Athira Rajeev
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Athira Rajeev @ 2023-02-07  5:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
  Cc: Ian Rogers, Andi Kleen, Nageswara Sastry, Kajol Jain,
	linux-perf-users, maddy, James Clark, Jiri Olsa, Namhyung Kim,
	disgoel, linuxppc-dev



> On 06-Feb-2023, at 8:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Em Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 09:27:13AM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>>> On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>>>> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
>>>> support as below:
>>>> 
>>>> # ./perf test 36
>>>> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
>>>> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>>>> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>>>> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>>>> 
>>>> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
>>>> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, applied.
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for checking
>> 
>> Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?
> 
> I thought I had this in :-\ Now its in tmp.perf/core.
> 
> - Arnaldo

Hi Arnaldo, 

Thanks for picking it.

Athira
> 
>> Athira 
>>> 
>>> - Arnaldo
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Detailed logs:
>>>> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>>>> 
>>>> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
>>>> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
>>>> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>>>> 
>>>> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
>>>> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
>>>> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
>>>> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>>>> 
>>>> With the change,
>>>> 
>>>> 	# ./perf test 36
>>>> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>>>> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>>>> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>>>> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>>>> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>>>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>>>> #define NR_ITERS       111
>>>> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>>>> 
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> #include <linux/bpf.h>
>>>> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>>>> 
>>>> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>>>> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>>>> {
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	return test__bpf(0);
>>>> #else
>>>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>>>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>>>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>>>> {
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	return test__bpf(1);
>>>> #else
>>>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>>>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>>>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>>>> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>>>> {
>>>> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	return test__bpf(2);
>>>> #else
>>>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>>>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>>>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>>>> #endif
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>>>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>>>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>>>> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>>>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>>>> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
>>>> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>>>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>>>> #endif
>>>> #else
>>>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
>>>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
>>>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>>>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>>>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>>>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>>>> #endif
>>>> 	{ .name = NULL, }
>>>> };
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.39.0
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> - Arnaldo
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-07  5:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-31 13:50 [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support Athira Rajeev
2023-01-31 13:50 ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-02  0:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2023-02-02  0:57   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2023-02-06  3:57   ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-06  3:57     ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-06 14:40     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2023-02-06 14:40       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2023-02-07  5:15       ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-07  5:15         ` Athira Rajeev
2023-02-06  9:20 ` Disha Goel

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.