On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 12:31:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:44:40 +0100 > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Steve, Masami, > > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 08:18:50AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > Masami, > > > > > > This series passed all my tests, are you comfortable with me pushing > > > them to linux-next? > > > > As a heads-up (and not to block pushing this into next), I just gave > > this a spin on arm64 atop v6.10-rc2, and running the selftests I see: > > > > ftrace - function pid filters > > (instance) ftrace - function pid filters > > > > ... both go from [PASS] to [FAIL]. > > > > Everything else looks good -- I'll go dig into why that's happening. > > > > It's possible that's just something odd with the filesystem I'm using > > (e.g. the wnership test failed because this lacks 'stat'). > > Thanks for the update. I could be something I missed in patch 13 that had > to put back the pid code. > > There may have been something arch specific that I'm unaware about. I'll > look at that deeper. It looks like e are lines in the trace that it doesn't expect: + cat trace + grep -v ^# + grep 970 + wc -l + count_pid=0 + cat trace + grep -v ^# + grep -v 970 + wc -l + count_other=3 + [ 0 -eq 0 -o 3 -ne 0 ] + fail PID filtering not working? ... where we expect that count_other to be 0. I hacked in a 'cat trace' just before the 'fail' and that shows: + cat trace # tracer: function_graph # # CPU DURATION FUNCTION CALLS # | | | | | | | 3) ! 143.685 us | kernel_clone(); 3) ! 127.055 us | kernel_clone(); 1) ! 127.170 us | kernel_clone(); 3) ! 126.840 us | kernel_clone(); I'm not sure if that's legitimate output the test is failing to account for or if that indicates a kernel-side issue. Mark.
