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=-11.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, 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 2DF76C433FE for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E004223D1C for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732346AbgLIRiP (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:38:15 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:43826 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732321AbgLIRiP (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:38:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 14:37:43 -0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1607535454; bh=lUHJqhuIA3sDRrFDDIRZHT2mURVMt9o5kThEgQGifhk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hORScaubAB2Dw3xq5K6JppzZdyguaTZn7xUDqDpIJSbi5cJmWA3vWqKcjZWzqvt5e 32k3295NDqmWYfA1ae5wy92GhcxJzECqyDFxxHCjmCMOZkLtaL7w7DvMnzFhcwuq0R 1pme2FLfpcMZV3T/7EH1L5pxGgdE/WdSCB0hMxzjneZjh4vaMJa6BrQEts8rkRctBO FILFMkpnR9a2lUnNI3V2zTbUItf1llSOvgM2vUk+Zjv2jD8Bcd4Z+FL5SRiCfBW0dH RES3W4kvKM703U48CY+mugesKbeltjhRpKBRdU8Ob+O8VfxS2mDsTVgtANP84zH/PC y7ztU6rqhT3kw== From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Thomas Richter Cc: Ravi Bangoria , Kajol Jain , jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, irogers@google.com, rbernon@codeweavers.com, maddy@linux.ibm.com, atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc Message-ID: <20201209173743.GB185686@kernel.org> References: <20201104082954.57338-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com> <20201119135022.36340-1-kjain@linux.ibm.com> <4a2908ca-6b75-c688-ec3b-7f37783f08cc@linux.ibm.com> <20201207163524.GF125383@kernel.org> <763d4593-d581-0971-338c-b811925be45b@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <763d4593-d581-0971-338c-b811925be45b@linux.ibm.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Thomas Richter escreveu: > On 12/7/20 5:35 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:04:53PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > >> > >> > >> On 11/19/20 7:20 PM, Kajol Jain wrote: > >>> Commit ed21d6d7c48e6e ("perf tests: Add test for PE binary format support") > >>> adds a WINDOWS EXE file named tests/pe-file.exe, which is > >>> examined by the test case 'PE file support'. As powerpc doesn't support > >>> it, we are skipping this test. > >>> > >>> Result in power9 platform before this patach: > >>> [command]# ./perf test -F 68 > >>> 68: PE file support : Failed! > >>> > >>> Result in power9 platform after this patch: > >>> [command]# ./perf test -F 68 > >>> 68: PE file support : Skip > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria > > > > But why is it failing? I.e. what is that > > > > perf test -v -F 68 > > > > outputs? > > > > Using 'perf report' on a perf.data file containing samples in such > > binaries, collected on x86 should work on whatever workstation a > > developer uses. > > > > Say, on a MacBook aarch64 one can look at a perf.data file collected on > > a x86_64 system where Wine running a PE binary was present. > > > > - Arnaldo > > > > Hi > > What is the distro you are using? > I observed the same issue on s390 but this was fixed for fedora33 somehow. > The error just went away after a dnf update.... > > [root@m35lp76 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release > Fedora release 33 (Thirty Three) > [root@m35lp76 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > 68: PE file support : Ok > [root@m35lp76 perf]# > > > However on my fedora32 machine it still fails: > [root@t35lp46 perf]# cat /etc/fedora-release > Fedora release 32 (Thirty Two) > [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > 68: PE file support : FAILED! > [root@t35lp46 perf]# > > Note that I am running the same kernel on both machines: linux 5.10.0rc7 downloaded > this morning. Fedora 33. What does 'perf test -v -F 68' says? - Arnaldo