* [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390. @ 2020-11-04 8:29 Thomas Richter 2020-11-19 13:50 ` [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc Kajol Jain 2020-11-19 13:55 ` [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390 kajoljain 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Thomas Richter @ 2020-11-04 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel, linux-perf-users, acme Cc: svens, gor, sumanthk, heiko.carstens, Thomas Richter 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'. This test reads the buildid from the file tests/pe-file.exe, which is a Portable Executable (PE) binary file used by the Windows operating system. Since s390 does not support PE files, omit this test. Output before: [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 68: PE file support : Failed! [root@t35lp46 perf]# Output after: [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 68: PE file support : Skip [root@t35lp46 perf]# Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com> --- tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c index 58b90c42eb38..4e45178c50f6 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ #include "tests.h" -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT) && !defined(__s390x__) static int run_dir(const char *d) { -- 2.26.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-11-04 8:29 [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390 Thomas Richter @ 2020-11-19 13:50 ` Kajol Jain 2020-11-24 9:34 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-11-19 13:55 ` [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390 kajoljain 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kajol Jain @ 2020-11-19 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: acme Cc: jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, ravi.bangoria, tmricht, kjain, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> --- tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c index 4e45178c50f6..14f675f5ffb2 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ #include "tests.h" -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT) && !defined(__s390x__) +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT) && !defined(__s390x__) && !defined(__powerpc__) static int run_dir(const char *d) { -- 2.27.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-11-19 13:50 ` [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc Kajol Jain @ 2020-11-24 9:34 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-12-07 16:35 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ravi Bangoria @ 2020-11-24 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kajol Jain, acme Cc: jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, tmricht, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev, Ravi Bangoria 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-11-24 9:34 ` Ravi Bangoria @ 2020-12-07 16:35 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2020-12-08 14:43 ` Thomas Richter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2020-12-07 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ravi Bangoria Cc: Kajol Jain, jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, tmricht, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-12-07 16:35 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2020-12-08 14:43 ` Thomas Richter 2020-12-08 17:02 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-12-09 17:37 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Thomas Richter @ 2020-12-08 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Ravi Bangoria Cc: Kajol Jain, jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> > > 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. -- Thomas Richter, Dept 3252, IBM s390 Linux Development, Boeblingen, Germany -- Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gregor Pillen Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-12-08 14:43 ` Thomas Richter @ 2020-12-08 17:02 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-12-09 17:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2020-12-09 17:37 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Ravi Bangoria @ 2020-12-08 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Richter, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Kajol Jain, jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev, Ravi Bangoria On 12/8/20 8:13 PM, Thomas Richter wrote: > 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> >> >> 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. > Ok that's interesting. I don't see that on powerpc. Fedora 32 with 5.10.0-rc2+ kernel: $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 68: PE file support : --- start --- filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id ---- end ---- PE file support: FAILED! Fedora 33 with 5.10.0-rc3 kernel: $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 68: PE file support : --- start --- filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id ---- end ---- PE file support: FAILED! Ubuntu 18.04.5 with 4.15.0-126-generic kernel: $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 68: PE file support : --- start --- filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:41 Failed to read build_id ---- end ---- PE file support: FAILED! I assumed bfd is not capable to parse PE files on powerpc. Though, I didn't check it in more detail. I'll look into it tomorrow. Ravi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-12-08 17:02 ` Ravi Bangoria @ 2020-12-09 17:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2020-12-10 5:52 ` Ravi Bangoria 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2020-12-09 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ravi Bangoria Cc: Thomas Richter, Kajol Jain, jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > On 12/8/20 8:13 PM, Thomas Richter wrote: > > 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> > > > 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. > > 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. > > > > Ok that's interesting. I don't see that on powerpc. > > Fedora 32 with 5.10.0-rc2+ kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > Fedora 33 with 5.10.0-rc3 kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > Ubuntu 18.04.5 with 4.15.0-126-generic kernel: > > $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 > 68: PE file support : > --- start --- > filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. > FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:41 Failed to read build_id > ---- end ---- > PE file support: FAILED! > > > I assumed bfd is not capable to parse PE files on powerpc. Though, > I didn't check it in more detail. I'll look into it tomorrow. Humm, so this is something related to installation? I.e. that pe-file.exe isn't being found... It first assumes that the developers are in the tools/perf/ directory, can you please add the patch below and see if it helps? Without it and without having actually installed perf (for instance with 'make -C tools/perf install' I get: [acme@five perf]$ perf test -F 68 68: PE file support : FAILED! [acme@five perf]$ [acme@five perf]$ perf test -F -v 68 Couldn't bump rlimit(MEMLOCK), failures may take place when creating BPF maps, etc 68: PE file support : --- start --- FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id ---- end ---- PE file support: FAILED! [acme@five perf]$ If I go to tools/perf: [acme@five perf]$ perf test 68 68: PE file support : Ok [acme@five perf]$ With the patch below it works both at the top level dir and at tools/perf/ on a system without a perf installation containing these PE files. We have this in tools/perf/Makefile.perf: install-tests: all install-gtk $(call QUIET_INSTALL, tests) \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/attr.py '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/pe-file.exe* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests'; \ <--------------------------------------------- $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/attr/* '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/attr'; \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/shell/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell'; \ $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib'; \ $(INSTALL) tests/shell/lib/*.sh '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(perfexec_instdir_SQ)/tests/shell/lib' install-bin: install-tools install-tests install-traceevent-plugins - Arnaldo diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c index 58b90c42eb38c1b9..a380d31b645b58dd 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c @@ -78,6 +78,9 @@ int test__pe_file_parsing(struct test *test __maybe_unused, if (!lstat("./tests", &st)) return run_dir("./tests"); + if (!lstat("./tools/perf/tests", &st)) + return run_dir("./tools/perf/tests"); + /* Then installed path. */ snprintf(path_dir, PATH_MAX, "%s/tests", get_argv_exec_path()); ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-12-09 17:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2020-12-10 5:52 ` Ravi Bangoria 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Ravi Bangoria @ 2020-12-10 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Thomas Richter, Kajol Jain, jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev, Ravi Bangoria On 12/9/20 11:19 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: >> On 12/8/20 8:13 PM, Thomas Richter wrote: >>> 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> > >>>> 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. > >>> 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. >>> >> >> Ok that's interesting. I don't see that on powerpc. >> >> Fedora 32 with 5.10.0-rc2+ kernel: >> >> $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 >> 68: PE file support : >> --- start --- >> filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. >> FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id >> ---- end ---- >> PE file support: FAILED! >> >> Fedora 33 with 5.10.0-rc3 kernel: >> >> $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 >> 68: PE file support : >> --- start --- >> filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. >> FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:40 Failed to read build_id >> ---- end ---- >> PE file support: FAILED! >> >> Ubuntu 18.04.5 with 4.15.0-126-generic kernel: >> >> $ ./perf test -vv -F 68 >> 68: PE file support : >> --- start --- >> filename__read_build_id: cannot read ./tests/pe-file.exe bfd file. >> FAILED tests/pe-file-parsing.c:41 Failed to read build_id >> ---- end ---- >> PE file support: FAILED! >> >> >> I assumed bfd is not capable to parse PE files on powerpc. Though, >> I didn't check it in more detail. I'll look into it tomorrow. > > Humm, so this is something related to installation? I.e. that > pe-file.exe isn't being found... > > It first assumes that the developers are in the tools/perf/ directory, > can you please add the patch below and see if it helps? I'm using upstream perf from tools/perf/ I checked bfd code and it's bfd_check_format() who is returning error "bfd_error_file_not_recognized". I cross verified with objdump as well: On x86: $ objdump -d ./tests/pe-file.exe ./tests/pe-file.exe: file format pei-x86-64 Disassembly of section .text: 0000000000401000 <__mingw_invalidParameterHandler>: 401000: c3 retq 401001: 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 data16 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1) 401008: 00 00 00 00 40100c: 0f 1f 40 00 nopl 0x0(%rax) On powerpc: $ objdump -d ./tests/pe-file.exe objdump: ./tests/pe-file.exe: file format not recognized Objdump is also returning *same* error. I dig more into bfd logs and found that Powerpc PE support was removed recently (Jul 2020) with this commit: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=fe49679d5193f6ff7cfd333e30883d293112a3d1 Ravi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc 2020-12-08 14:43 ` Thomas Richter 2020-12-08 17:02 ` Ravi Bangoria @ 2020-12-09 17:37 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2020-12-09 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Richter Cc: Ravi Bangoria, Kajol Jain, jolsa, namhyung, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, irogers, rbernon, maddy, atrajeev 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 <kjain@linux.ibm.com> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> > > > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390. 2020-11-04 8:29 [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390 Thomas Richter 2020-11-19 13:50 ` [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc Kajol Jain @ 2020-11-19 13:55 ` kajoljain 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: kajoljain @ 2020-11-19 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Richter, linux-kernel, linux-perf-users, acme Cc: svens, gor, sumanthk, heiko.carstens On 11/4/20 1:59 PM, Thomas Richter 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'. > > This test reads the buildid from the file tests/pe-file.exe, > which is a Portable Executable (PE) binary file used by the > Windows operating system. > > Since s390 does not support PE files, omit this test. > > Output before: > [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > 68: PE file support : Failed! > [root@t35lp46 perf]# > > Output after: > [root@t35lp46 perf]# ./perf test -F 68 > 68: PE file support : Skip > [root@t35lp46 perf]# > > Patch looks good to me. Thanks for correcting it. Since in powerpc also we are having similar issue, I send patch on top of this change. Reviewed-By: Kajol Jain<kjain@linux.ibm.com> Thanks, Kajol Jain > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com> > --- > tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c > index 58b90c42eb38..4e45178c50f6 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/pe-file-parsing.c > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ > > #include "tests.h" > > -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT > +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT) && !defined(__s390x__) > > static int run_dir(const char *d) > { > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-10 5:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-11-04 8:29 [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390 Thomas Richter 2020-11-19 13:50 ` [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc Kajol Jain 2020-11-24 9:34 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-12-07 16:35 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2020-12-08 14:43 ` Thomas Richter 2020-12-08 17:02 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-12-09 17:49 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2020-12-10 5:52 ` Ravi Bangoria 2020-12-09 17:37 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2020-11-19 13:55 ` [PATCH] perf test: Omit test 68 for s390 kajoljain
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).