Re: [PATCH v2] perf test: Workload test of metric and metricgroups

[Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 3:00 AM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 17/09/2021 20:16, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:37 AM John Garry<john.garry@huawei.com>  wrote:
> >> On 16/09/2021 07:05, Ian Rogers wrote:
> >>> Test every metric and metricgroup with 'true' as a workload.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers<irogers@google.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: John Garry<john.garry@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> Note that I also had a local test for pmu events:
> >> for e in `$PERF list --raw-dump pmu`; do
> >>     echo "Testing $e"
> >>     result=$($PERF stat -v -e "$e" perf bench internals synthesize)
> >>     if [[ "$result" =~ "$e" ]]; then
> >>       echo "Event not printed: $e"
> >>       exit 1
> >>     fi
> >> done
> >>
> >> Is there any value in upstreaming this? I could not see same already
> >> there. Or else make your new script generic, so that it accepts an
> >> argument whether to test events or metrics or metricgroups
> > It is not easy to make a generic script with the current shell test
> > infrastructure. I made a variant of this test:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20210917184240.2181186-2-irogers@google.com/T/#u
> > For skylake it ran for 1m15s and so it may be too slow. Perhaps we
> > need to add to the test infrastructure with some kind of speed flag.
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> I suggested this before I realized that it would be called from "perf test".
>
> You think that 1m15s could be considered too slow, but I think that it
> could be much slower to now run "perf test" on some other systems. Like
> my arm64 system - see series
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/1631795665-240946-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/T/#t
> - where I mention that we have >700 HW PMU events (before applying that
> series to take advantage of the event merging). And each of those events
> would be tested individually - slow...
>
> So firstly maybe a speed or test level flag could be added before we try
> this. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Hi John,

I think a flag would be best. I'll look to add a notion of test sizes,
as that mirrors what works well at Google. We can then tag a test as
small, medium, large and default to just say running small and medium
tests.

Thanks,
Ian

> Thanks,
> John