From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com>,
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,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip test 68 for Powerpc
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:32:33 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29a77348-2ab7-1235-3fcf-c505dab1f1a1@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <763d4593-d581-0971-338c-b811925be45b@linux.ibm.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-08 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
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 [this message]
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=29a77348-2ab7-1235-3fcf-c505dab1f1a1@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kjain@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=rbernon@codeweavers.com \
--cc=tmricht@linux.ibm.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).