BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Y Song <ys114321@gmail.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	gor@linux.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: fix test_send_signal_nmi on s390
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:54:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH3MdRWEfrQt6P4eMYgGRE9OgLkjQLqoZnCwFbrxwqKPyrrHpQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzbZ4gUZb67EKiNZTc0MnqqGz7sTB20u-M+sF+YG0Sr3pg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:24 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> 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 <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> > Acked-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  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.

I still like to do hardware cpu_cycles in order to test nmi.
In a physical box.
$ perf list
List of pre-defined events (to be used in -e):

  branch-instructions OR branches                    [Hardware event]
  branch-misses                                      [Hardware event]
  bus-cycles                                         [Hardware event]
  cache-misses                                       [Hardware event]
  cache-references                                   [Hardware event]
  cpu-cycles OR cycles                               [Hardware event]
  instructions                                       [Hardware event]
  ref-cycles                                         [Hardware event]

  alignment-faults                                   [Software event]
  bpf-output                                         [Software event]
  context-switches OR cs                             [Software event]
  cpu-clock                                          [Software event]
  cpu-migrations OR migrations                       [Software event]
  dummy                                              [Software event]
  emulation-faults                                   [Software event]
  major-faults                                       [Software event]
  minor-faults                                       [Software event]
  page-faults OR faults                              [Software event]
  task-clock                                         [Software event]

  L1-dcache-load-misses                              [Hardware cache event]
...

In a VM
$ perf list
List of pre-defined events (to be used in -e):

  alignment-faults                                   [Software event]
  bpf-output                                         [Software event]
  context-switches OR cs                             [Software event]
  cpu-clock                                          [Software event]
  cpu-migrations OR migrations                       [Software event]
  dummy                                              [Software event]
  emulation-faults                                   [Software event]
  major-faults                                       [Software event]
  minor-faults                                       [Software event]
  page-faults OR faults                              [Software event]
  task-clock                                         [Software event]

  msr/smi/                                           [Kernel PMU
event]
  msr/tsc/                                           [Kernel PMU event]
.....

Is it possible that we detect at runtime whether the hardware
cpu_cycles available or not?
If available, let us do hardware one. Otherwise, skip or do the
software one? The software one does not really do nmi so it will take
the same code path in kernel as tracepoint.

>
> >                 .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
> >

  reply index

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-12 17:45 Ilya Leoshkevich
2019-07-12 18:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-12 19:54   ` Y Song [this message]
2019-07-12 19:59     ` Andrii Nakryiko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAH3MdRWEfrQt6P4eMYgGRE9OgLkjQLqoZnCwFbrxwqKPyrrHpQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ys114321@gmail.com \
    --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/0 bpf/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 bpf bpf/ https://lore.kernel.org/bpf \
		bpf@vger.kernel.org bpf@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index bpf


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.bpf


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox