Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:40:29 -0300

Em Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 09:27:13AM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> > On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
> >> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
> >> support as below:
> >> 
> >> # ./perf test 36
> >> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
> >> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
> >> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
> >> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
> >> 
> >> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
> >> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
> > 
> > Thanks, applied.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for checking
> 
> Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?

I thought I had this in :-\ Now its in tmp.perf/core.

- Arnaldo
 
> Athira 
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> > 
> > 
> >> Detailed logs:
> >> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
> >> 
> >> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
> >> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
> >> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
> >> 
> >> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
> >> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
> >> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
> >> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
> >> 
> >> With the change,
> >> 
> >> 	# ./perf test 36
> >> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
> >> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> >> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
> >> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> >> #define NR_ITERS       111
> >> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
> >> 
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> >> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
> >> 
> >> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
> >> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(0);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(1);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
> >> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
> >> {
> >> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	return test__bpf(2);
> >> #else
> >> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
> >> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
> >> 	return TEST_SKIP;
> >> #endif
> >> }
> >> 
> >> 
> >> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> >> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
> >> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
> >> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
> >> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
> >> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
> >> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
> >> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> #endif
> >> #else
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
> >> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
> >> #endif
> >> 	{ .name = NULL, }
> >> };
> >> -- 
> >> 2.39.0
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > - Arnaldo
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo