From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C7FC742D2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:22:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE895204FD for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:22:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="s4tzxMXm" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727118AbfGLSWW (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:22:22 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f196.google.com ([209.85.160.196]:34151 "EHLO mail-qt1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726811AbfGLSWW (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:22:22 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f196.google.com with SMTP id k10so9111151qtq.1; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=z52CPvGYyshFCv4ps78yejJkNPzy34bZ7EuWUc8Pj4A=; b=s4tzxMXm3PPwohaf/EAtbvBVHUYWXQhwO2Wrv2WnBSvcv69uzfvmSygqEXF4NlfPsI En2tAWUix1tpMvnlqnaSidDZ9t3ob5/2jX3Jt9Z1f/4HsvHoj9hr1z6LMK2zWeywXl53 zstcce3UpuxYe44+y65pTwj7aiyz+T3dHBYQTEHI4wTBrP1KR3aTL3dWTcHfHwXM1Br0 n9ZAbmDioXrTq412HcTkwIhaUkRHlL/rrlAvi6CtFyoNrY+CYUHdAuZX2aDJmRfGmmIe 8c1z9Gv18CtIjL5V/6skJ9oC3ClLWcswHZDR6ydR9EoQrR8A1kasogQjH+SDJEssmsbO gyyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z52CPvGYyshFCv4ps78yejJkNPzy34bZ7EuWUc8Pj4A=; b=YO9pTISeJv58xSsHyyyC5hbErTnooGEDyouc3lmo2XLihT3Kxb4w3jD9pHqaB8WIC6 5VRPUhMo/O4z+nJW/yI3RcNN5MqGpJwXbc5QwpaAUoYqbH6ZvNksJKdfcLKPZfCYbw86 4igGXbysxCv8D5upZDScDg2ypbVJNSugZSSLm4gWuhzGc4r5jNmPD+tbrdVuRkQFZ5jK GWhPz5TbwQwCR1sUjzMzOFiBiaW0w/3DQFGkrEt020lPQidq4ZEDpvXIioRDNUejCOoE vLWJ4BekhuUGGlI6qdz2N7kbukjen4+H80HkbSIT73D1u2hOa1690wuFBk5f/VeS+moj tOAA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVwfhouvz2YPjAggm05tjaRlntw1hpwimquiaaSdKSMjjqQ0Nqa +wuKESQWVhhLeI9wEL62yPAFAovlFjDKOUFTjEx/WPdEWsHqlA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWA26861Tgr1sr9MwSfjI7n12pUnm7Kkqsqwg10lYG2Mi/4ZCZbb78mG2WPOkvMCPepx9+kLFxnaJEwDKUNdA= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:c107:: with SMTP id f7mr7844274qvh.150.1562955741479; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190712174528.1767-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20190712174528.1767-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> From: Andrii Nakryiko Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:22:10 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: fix test_send_signal_nmi on s390 To: Ilya Leoshkevich Cc: bpf , Networking , gor@linux.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46 AM Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > Many s390 setups (most notably, KVM guests) do not have access to > hardware performance events. > > Therefore, use the software event instead. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich > Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c > index 67cea1686305..4a45ea0b8448 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/send_signal.c > @@ -176,10 +176,19 @@ static int test_send_signal_tracepoint(void) > static int test_send_signal_nmi(void) > { > struct perf_event_attr attr = { > +#if defined(__s390__) > + /* Many s390 setups (most notably, KVM guests) do not have > + * access to hardware performance events. > + */ > + .sample_period = 1, > + .type = PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE, > + .config = PERF_COUNT_SW_CPU_CLOCK, > +#else Is there any harm in switching all archs to software event? I'd rather avoid all those special arch cases, which will be really hard to test for people without direct access to them. > .sample_freq = 50, > .freq = 1, > .type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE, > .config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES, > +#endif > }; > > return test_send_signal_common(&attr, BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT, "perf_event"); > -- > 2.21.0 >