Em Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 03:48:03PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 09:22:10AM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:03 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:41:14PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:10 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:59:46PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 01:57:31AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > > > [jolsa@krava perf]$ sudo ./perf test 17 -v > > > > > > 17: Setup struct perf_event_attr : > > > > > > > running './tests/attr/test-record-C0' > > > > > > expected sample_period=4000, got 3000 > > > > > > FAILED './tests/attr/test-record-C0' - match failure > > > > > > I'm not able to reproduce this. Do you have a build configuration or > > > > > something else to look at? The test doesn't seem obviously connected > > > > > with this patch. > > > > > Jiri, any update? Thanks, > > > > sorry, I rebased and ran it again and it passes for me now, > > > so it got fixed along the way > > > No worries, thanks for the update! It'd be nice to land this and the > > other libpfm fixes. > > I applied it and it generated this regression: > > FAILED '/home/acme/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-pfm-period' - match failure > > I'll look at the other patches that are pending in this regard to see > what needs to be squashed so that we don't break bisect. So, more context: running '/home/acme/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-pfm-period' expected exclude_hv=0, got 1 FAILED '/home/acme/libexec/perf-core/tests/attr/test-record-pfm-period' - match failure test child finished with -1 ---- end ---- Setup struct perf_event_attr: FAILED! [root@five ~]# Ian, can you take a look at this? - Arnaldo
