[LTP] [PATCH ltp] Add 4 more cases for Intel PT.
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
Fri Apr 5 16:54:49 CEST 2019
Hi!
> +/* 10/2018 Add full trace check test case */
> +/* 2/2019 Add snapshot/disable branch/user/kernel trace */
We keep the history in git, please do not add comments like these.
> #include <sched.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> @@ -40,22 +42,36 @@ int fde = -1;
> //map head and size
> uint64_t **bufm;
> long buhsz;
> -
> -static uint64_t **create_map(int fde, long bufsize)
> +char *str_mode;
> +char *str_exclude_info;
> +char *str_branch_flag;
> +int mode = 1;
> +int exclude_info = 3;
> +int branch_flag = 1;
> +
> +static uint64_t **create_map(int fde, long bufsize, int flag)
^
Can we call
this rw_flag?
> {
> uint64_t **buf_ev;
> + int pro_flag;
> struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc;
>
> buf_ev = SAFE_MALLOC(2*sizeof(uint64_t *));
> buf_ev[0] = NULL;
> buf_ev[1] = NULL;
> + if (flag == 1) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "memory will be r/w!");
^
Can you be more specific here?
You map one of the buffers read only if the flag is not set but the
option is called full/snapshot trace, it does not explain the difference
much.
> + pro_flag = PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE;
> + } else {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "memory will be r only!");
> + pro_flag = PROT_READ;
> + }
> buf_ev[0] = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, INTEL_PT_MEMSIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> MAP_SHARED, fde, 0);
>
> pc = (struct perf_event_mmap_page *)buf_ev[0];
> pc->aux_offset = INTEL_PT_MEMSIZE;
> pc->aux_size = bufsize;
> - buf_ev[1] = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, bufsize, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
> + buf_ev[1] = SAFE_MMAP(NULL, bufsize, pro_flag,
> MAP_SHARED, fde, INTEL_PT_MEMSIZE);
> return buf_ev;
> }
> @@ -89,7 +105,7 @@ static void del_map(uint64_t **buf_ev, long bufsize)
> free(buf_ev);
> }
>
> -static void intel_pt_full_trace_check(void)
> +static void intel_pt_trace_check(void)
> {
> uint64_t aux_head = 0;
> struct perf_event_mmap_page *pmp;
> @@ -108,7 +124,19 @@ static void intel_pt_full_trace_check(void)
> return;
> }
>
> - tst_res(TPASS, "perf trace full mode is passed!");
> + tst_res(TPASS, "perf trace test is passed!");
> +}
> +
> +static void parse_options(void)
> +{
> + if (tst_parse_int(str_mode, &mode, 0, 1))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "Invalid mode '%s'", str_mode);
> +
> + if (tst_parse_int(str_exclude_info, &exclude_info, 1, 2))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "Invalid exclude info '%s'", str_exclude_info);
> +
> + if (tst_parse_int(str_branch_flag, &branch_flag, 0, 1))
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "Invalid branch flag '%s'", str_branch_flag);
> }
>
> static void setup(void)
> @@ -116,6 +144,9 @@ static void setup(void)
> struct perf_event_attr attr = {};
>
> buhsz = 2 * PAGESIZE;
> +
> + parse_options();
> +
> if (access(INTEL_PT_PATH, F_OK)) {
> tst_brk(TCONF,
> "Requires Intel Core 5th+ generation (Broadwell and newer)"
> @@ -130,9 +161,24 @@ static void setup(void)
> attr.config = BIT(intel_pt_pmu_value(INTEL_PT_FORMAT_TSC)) |
> BIT(intel_pt_pmu_value(INTEL_PT_FORMAT_NRT));
> attr.size = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr);
> - attr.exclude_kernel = 0;
> - attr.exclude_user = 0;
> - attr.mmap = 1;
> + attr.mmap = 1;
Removing whitespaces here is kind of useless change.
> + if (branch_flag == 0) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Intel PT will disable branch trace!");
^
Why does all the messages include
exclamation mark? These are just info
messages anyways.
> + attr.config |= 1;
> + }
> +
> + attr.exclude_kernel = 0;
> + attr.exclude_user = 0;
> +
> + if (exclude_info == 1) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Intel PT will exclude user trace!");
> + attr.exclude_user = 1;
> + }
> +
> + if (exclude_info == 2) {
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Intel PT will exclude kernel trace!");
> + attr.exclude_kernel = 1;
> + }
>
> /* only get trace for own pid */
> fde = tst_syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, 0, -1, -1, 0);
> @@ -142,7 +188,7 @@ static void setup(void)
> return;
> }
> bufm = NULL;
> - bufm = create_map(fde, buhsz);
> + bufm = create_map(fde, buhsz, mode);
>
> }
>
> @@ -154,8 +200,17 @@ static void cleanup(void)
> del_map(bufm, buhsz);
> }
>
> +static struct tst_option options[] = {
> + {"m:", &str_mode, "-m different mode, as full trace or snapshot trace"},
This parameter is binary switch so there is no point having it as a flag
with a value. We can just pass "m" instead of "m:" there then do if ()
on the string pointer passed here.
> + {"e:", &str_exclude_info, "-e exclude info, 1->user, 2->kernel"},
It would be a bit more user-friendly if we passed strings "user" and
"kernel" insteead of 1 and 2 as the flag parameters.
> + {"b:", &str_branch_flag, "-b if disable branch trace"},
Here as well.
> + {NULL, NULL, NULL}
> +};
> +
> +
> static struct tst_test test = {
> - .test_all = intel_pt_full_trace_check,
> + .test_all = intel_pt_trace_check,
> + .options = options,
> .min_kver = "4.1",
> .setup = setup,
> .cleanup = cleanup,
> --
> 2.14.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
More information about the ltp
mailing list