On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 03:22:25PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 12:05:50PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 05:12:47PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:10:07AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:30:35PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > > Now it can run the BPF filtering test with normal user if the BPF > > > > > objects are pinned by 'sudo perf record --setup-filter pin'. Let's > > > > > update the test case to verify the behavior. It'll skip the test if the > > > > > filter check is failed from a normal user, but it shows a message how to > > > > > set up the filters. > > > > > > > > > > First, run the test as a normal user and it fails. > > > > > > > > > > $ perf test -vv filtering > > > > > 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests: > > > > > --- start --- > > > > > test child forked, pid 425677 > > > > > Checking BPF-filter privilege > > > > > try 'sudo perf record --setup-filter pin' first. <<<--- here > > > > > bpf-filter test [Skipped permission] > > > > > ---- end(-2) ---- > > > > > 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests : Skip > > > > > > > > > > According to the message, run the perf record command to pin the BPF > > > > > objects. > > > > > > > > > > $ sudo perf record --setup-filter pin > > > > > > > > > > And re-run the test as a normal user. > > > > > > > > > > $ perf test -vv filtering > > > > > 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests: > > > > > --- start --- > > > > > test child forked, pid 424486 > > > > > Checking BPF-filter privilege > > > > > Basic bpf-filter test > > > > > Basic bpf-filter test [Success] > > > > > Failing bpf-filter test > > > > > Error: task-clock event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_CPU > > > > > Failing bpf-filter test [Success] > > > > > Group bpf-filter test > > > > > Error: task-clock event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_CPU > > > > > Error: task-clock event does not have PERF_SAMPLE_CODE_PAGE_SIZE > > > > > Group bpf-filter test [Success] > > > > > ---- end(0) ---- > > > > > 95: perf record sample filtering (by BPF) tests : Ok > > > > > > > > Ok, so I tested one of the examples you provide as a root user: > > > > > > > > root@number:~# perf record -o- -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 10' perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.024 MB - ] > > > > perf-exec 228020 53029.825757: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7fe361d1cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf-exec 228020 53029.825760: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7fe361d1cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf 228020 53029.826313: 1 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7fd80d7ba040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228020 53029.826316: 1 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7fd80d7ba040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228020 53029.838051: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228020 53029.838054: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228020 53029.838055: 9 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228020 53029.844137: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228020 53029.844139: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > root@number:~# perf record -o- -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 100000' perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.025 MB - ] > > > > perf-exec 228084 53076.760776: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f7e7691cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf-exec 228084 53076.760779: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f7e7691cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf-exec 228084 53076.760779: 10 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f7e7691cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf-exec 228084 53076.760780: 497 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f7e7691cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf-exec 228084 53076.760781: 27924 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f7e7691cc11 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf 228084 53076.761318: 1 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f317057d040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.761320: 1 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f317057d040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.761321: 14 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f317057d040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.761322: 518 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f317057d040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.761322: 20638 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f317057d040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.768070: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f317056e898 _dl_relocate_object+0x1d8 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.768072: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f317056e898 _dl_relocate_object+0x1d8 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.768073: 17 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f317056e898 _dl_relocate_object+0x1d8 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.768073: 836 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f317056e898 _dl_relocate_object+0x1d8 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.768074: 44346 cpu_core/cycles/u: 7f317056e89b _dl_relocate_object+0x1db (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228084 53076.843976: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53076.843978: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53076.843979: 13 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53076.843979: 563 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53076.843980: 26519 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53077.482090: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53077.482092: 1 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53077.482093: 15 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53077.482093: 746 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b062 noploop+0x62 (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > perf 228084 53077.482094: 38315 cpu_core/cycles/u: 53b05c noploop+0x5c (/home/acme/bin/perf) > > > > root@number:~# > > > > > > > > Filtering by period works as advertised, now I have done as root; > > > > > > > > root@number:~# perf record --setup-filter pin > > > > root@number:~# ls -la /sys/fs/bpf/perf_filter/ > > > > total 0 > > > > drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 . > > > > drwxr-xr-t. 3 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 .. > > > > -rw-rw-rw-. 1 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 dropped > > > > -rw-rw-rw-. 1 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 filters > > > > -rwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 perf_sample_filter > > > > -rw-rw-rw-. 1 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 pid_hash > > > > -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 sample_f_rodata > > > > root@number:~# ls -la /sys/fs/bpf/perf_filter/perf_sample_filter > > > > -rwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 0 Jul 31 10:43 /sys/fs/bpf/perf_filter/perf_sample_filter > > > > root@number:~# > > > > > > > > And as a normal user I try: > > > > > > > > acme@number:~$ perf record -o- -e cycles:u perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- | head > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.204 MB - ] > > > > perf 228218 53158.670585: 1 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b6e040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.670590: 1 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b6e040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.670592: 7 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b6e040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.670593: 117 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b6e040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.670595: 2152 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b6e040 _start+0x0 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.670604: 38977 cpu_atom/cycles/u: ffffffff99201280 [unknown] ([unknown]) > > > > perf 228218 53158.670650: 167064 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b67d7c intel_check_word.constprop.0+0x16c (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.671472: 232830 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b75d98 strcmp+0x78 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.672710: 191183 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b59311 _dl_map_object_from_fd+0xea1 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > perf 228218 53158.673461: 158125 cpu_atom/cycles/u: 7f2fb1b77148 strcmp+0x1428 (/usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2) > > > > acme@number:~$ > > > > > > > > Ok, no filtering, bot samples, lets try to use filtering as with root: > > > > > > > > acme@number:~$ perf record -o- -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 10000000' perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB - ] > > > > acme@number:~$ perf record -o- -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 10000000' perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB - ] > > > > acme@number:~$ perf record -o- -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 10000000' perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB - ] > > > > acme@number:~$ perf record -o- -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 10000000' perf test -w noploop | perf script -i- > > > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > > > > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.019 MB - ] > > > > acme@number:~$ > > > > > > Hmm.. strange. The above command works well for me. > > > > > > > > > > > acme@number:~$ perf record -v -e cycles:u --filter 'period < 10000000' perf test -w noploop > > > > Using CPUID GenuineIntel-6-B7-1 > > > > DEBUGINFOD_URLS= > > > > nr_cblocks: 0 > > > > affinity: SYS > > > > mmap flush: 1 > > > > comp level: 0 > > > > Problems creating module maps, continuing anyway... > > > > pid hash: 228434 -> 13 > > > > pid hash: 228434 -> 14 > > > > > > This part is a little strange as it's using two entries. Hmm, are you > > > using a hybrid machine? Anyway I think it should work there too.. > > > > Yes, I'll try it again on a 5950x since it isn't hybrid. > > > > > Also the number is too high.. I expect 1 or 2. Maybe it didn't release > > > all the entries. Let me think about the case. > > > > I'm inclined for now to keep this series merged and then take fixes on > > top, please advise if this isn't ok with you. > > No objections, I'll investigate why it failed on your machine.. I've sent out a fix for multiple events. Can you please check out if it fixes your problem? It's on top of this series. https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240802173752.1014527-1-namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx Thanks, Namhyung
