| Message ID | 1452520124-2073-18-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: > Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves > test__bp_signal so we can test: > > 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction > 2. Nested signals > > Test result: > > On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): > > # ./perf test -v signal > 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : > --- start --- > test child forked, pid 10213 > count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 > test child finished with 0 > ---- end ---- > Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok > > So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com > [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com > > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better, Tested-by for the AARCH64 base? IIRC Jiri made some comment about this one? - Arnaldo > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> > --- > tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c > index fb80c9e..1d1bb48 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c > @@ -29,14 +29,59 @@ > > static int fd1; > static int fd2; > +static int fd3; > static int overflows; > +static int overflows_2; > + > +volatile long the_var; > + > + > +/* > + * Use ASM to ensure watchpoint and breakpoint can be triggered > + * at one instruction. > + */ > +#if defined (__x86_64__) > +extern void __test_function(volatile long *ptr); > +asm ( > + ".globl __test_function\n" > + "__test_function:\n" > + "incq (%rdi)\n" > + "ret\n"); > +#elif defined (__aarch64__) > +extern void __test_function(volatile long *ptr); > +asm ( > + ".globl __test_function\n" > + "__test_function:\n" > + "str x30, [x0]\n" > + "ret\n"); > + > +#else > +static void __test_function(volatile long *ptr) > +{ > + *ptr = 0x1234; > +} > +#endif > > __attribute__ ((noinline)) > static int test_function(void) > { > + __test_function(&the_var); > + the_var++; > return time(NULL); > } > > +static void sig_handler_2(int signum __maybe_unused, > + siginfo_t *oh __maybe_unused, > + void *uc __maybe_unused) > +{ > + overflows_2++; > + if (overflows_2 > 10) { > + ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > + ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > + } > +} > + > static void sig_handler(int signum __maybe_unused, > siginfo_t *oh __maybe_unused, > void *uc __maybe_unused) > @@ -54,10 +99,11 @@ static void sig_handler(int signum __maybe_unused, > */ > ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > } > } > > -static int bp_event(void *fn, int setup_signal) > +static int __event(bool is_x, void *addr, int signal) > { > struct perf_event_attr pe; > int fd; > @@ -67,8 +113,8 @@ static int bp_event(void *fn, int setup_signal) > pe.size = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr); > > pe.config = 0; > - pe.bp_type = HW_BREAKPOINT_X; > - pe.bp_addr = (unsigned long) fn; > + pe.bp_type = is_x ? HW_BREAKPOINT_X : HW_BREAKPOINT_W; > + pe.bp_addr = (unsigned long) addr; > pe.bp_len = sizeof(long); > > pe.sample_period = 1; > @@ -86,17 +132,25 @@ static int bp_event(void *fn, int setup_signal) > return TEST_FAIL; > } > > - if (setup_signal) { > - fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_ASYNC); > - fcntl(fd, F_SETSIG, SIGIO); > - fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN, getpid()); > - } > + fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_ASYNC); > + fcntl(fd, F_SETSIG, signal); > + fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN, getpid()); > > ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_RESET, 0); > > return fd; > } > > +static int bp_event(void *addr, int signal) > +{ > + return __event(true, addr, signal); > +} > + > +static int wp_event(void *addr, int signal) > +{ > + return __event(false, addr, signal); > +} > + > static long long bp_count(int fd) > { > long long count; > @@ -114,7 +168,7 @@ static long long bp_count(int fd) > int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) > { > struct sigaction sa; > - long long count1, count2; > + long long count1, count2, count3; > > /* setup SIGIO signal handler */ > memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(struct sigaction)); > @@ -126,21 +180,52 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) > return TEST_FAIL; > } > > + sa.sa_sigaction = (void *) sig_handler_2; > + if (sigaction(SIGUSR1, &sa, NULL) < 0) { > + pr_debug("failed setting up signal handler 2\n"); > + return TEST_FAIL; > + } > + > /* > * We create following events: > * > - * fd1 - breakpoint event on test_function with SIGIO > + * fd1 - breakpoint event on __test_function with SIGIO > * signal configured. We should get signal > * notification each time the breakpoint is hit > * > - * fd2 - breakpoint event on sig_handler without SIGIO > + * fd2 - breakpoint event on sig_handler with SIGUSR1 > + * configured. We should get SIGUSR1 each time when > + * breakpoint is hit > + * > + * fd3 - watchpoint event on __test_function with SIGIO > * configured. > * > * Following processing should happen: > - * - execute test_function > - * - fd1 event breakpoint hit -> count1 == 1 > - * - SIGIO is delivered -> overflows == 1 > - * - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 1 > + * Exec: Action: Result: > + * incq (%rdi) - fd1 event breakpoint hit -> count1 == 1 > + * - SIGIO is delivered > + * sig_handler - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 1 > + * - SIGUSR1 is delivered > + * sig_handler_2 -> overflows_2 == 1 (nested signal) > + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler_2 > + * overflows++ -> overflows = 1 > + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler > + * incq (%rdi) - fd3 event watchpoint hit -> count3 == 1 (wp and bp in one insn) > + * - SIGIO is delivered > + * sig_handler - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 2 > + * - SIGUSR1 is delivered > + * sig_handler_2 -> overflows_2 == 2 (nested signal) > + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler_2 > + * overflows++ -> overflows = 2 > + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler > + * the_var++ - fd3 event watchpoint hit -> count3 == 2 (standalone watchpoint) > + * - SIGIO is delivered > + * sig_handler - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 3 > + * - SIGUSR1 is delivered > + * sig_handler_2 -> overflows_2 == 3 (nested signal) > + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler_2 > + * overflows++ -> overflows == 3 > + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler > * > * The test case check following error conditions: > * - we get stuck in signal handler because of debug > @@ -152,11 +237,13 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) > * > */ > > - fd1 = bp_event(test_function, 1); > - fd2 = bp_event(sig_handler, 0); > + fd1 = bp_event(__test_function, SIGIO); > + fd2 = bp_event(sig_handler, SIGUSR1); > + fd3 = wp_event((void *)&the_var, SIGIO); > > ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0); > ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0); > + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0); > > /* > * Kick off the test by trigering 'fd1' > @@ -166,15 +253,18 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) > > ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); > > count1 = bp_count(fd1); > count2 = bp_count(fd2); > + count3 = bp_count(fd3); > > close(fd1); > close(fd2); > + close(fd3); > > - pr_debug("count1 %lld, count2 %lld, overflow %d\n", > - count1, count2, overflows); > + pr_debug("count1 %lld, count2 %lld, count3 %lld, overflow %d, overflows_2 %d\n", > + count1, count2, count3, overflows, overflows_2); > > if (count1 != 1) { > if (count1 == 11) > @@ -183,12 +273,18 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) > pr_debug("failed: wrong count for bp1%lld\n", count1); > } > > - if (overflows != 1) > + if (overflows != 3) > pr_debug("failed: wrong overflow hit\n"); > > - if (count2 != 1) > + if (overflows_2 != 3) > + pr_debug("failed: wrong overflow_2 hit\n"); > + > + if (count2 != 3) > pr_debug("failed: wrong count for bp2\n"); > > - return count1 == 1 && overflows == 1 && count2 == 1 ? > + if (count3 != 2) > + pr_debug("failed: wrong count for bp3\n"); > + > + return count1 == 1 && overflows == 3 && count2 == 3 && overflows_2 == 3 && count3 == 2 ? > TEST_OK : TEST_FAIL; > } > -- > 1.8.3.4
On 2016/1/12 5:37, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: >> Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves >> test__bp_signal so we can test: >> >> 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction >> 2. Nested signals >> >> Test result: >> >> On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): >> >> # ./perf test -v signal >> 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : >> --- start --- >> test child forked, pid 10213 >> count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 >> test child finished with 0 >> ---- end ---- >> Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok >> >> So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. >> >> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com >> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better, > Tested-by for the AARCH64 base? Patch [2] is still in question. On AArch64 this test will fail even without this patch. Thank you.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:37:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: > > Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves > > test__bp_signal so we can test: > > > > 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction > > 2. Nested signals > > > > Test result: > > > > On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): > > > > # ./perf test -v signal > > 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : > > --- start --- > > test child forked, pid 10213 > > count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 > > test child finished with 0 > > ---- end ---- > > Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok > > > > So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com > > [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better, > Tested-by for the AARCH64 base? > > IIRC Jiri made some comment about this one? I thought I acked this one.. all comments were addresses, so: Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> thanks, jirka
Em Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:21:29AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:37:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: > > > Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves > > > test__bp_signal so we can test: > > > > > > 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction > > > 2. Nested signals > > > > > > Test result: > > > > > > On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): > > > > > > # ./perf test -v signal > > > 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : > > > --- start --- > > > test child forked, pid 10213 > > > count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 > > > test child finished with 0 > > > ---- end ---- > > > Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok > > > > > > So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. > > > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com > > > [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > > > Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better, > > Tested-by for the AARCH64 base? > > > > IIRC Jiri made some comment about this one? > > I thought I acked this one.. all comments were addresses, so: > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Ok, so, Will, any comments? Nack? - Arnaldo
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:21:29AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:37:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: > > > > Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves > > > > test__bp_signal so we can test: > > > > > > > > 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction > > > > 2. Nested signals > > > > > > > > Test result: > > > > > > > > On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): > > > > > > > > # ./perf test -v signal > > > > 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : > > > > --- start --- > > > > test child forked, pid 10213 > > > > count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 > > > > test child finished with 0 > > > > ---- end ---- > > > > Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok > > > > > > > > So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. > > > > > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com > > > > [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> > > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > > > > > Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better, > > > Tested-by for the AARCH64 base? > > > > > > IIRC Jiri made some comment about this one? > > > > I thought I acked this one.. all comments were addresses, so: > > > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> > > Ok, so, Will, any comments? Nack? Sorry, snowed under at the moment. I need to go back over the arch/arm64 patch, since I did have some concerns on that and the changes to the perf tool don't do a lot without the corresponding architecture update which I'm extremely nervous about. I'll revisit that patch once I've got through the more pressing changes in the queue. Will
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c index fb80c9e..1d1bb48 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c @@ -29,14 +29,59 @@ static int fd1; static int fd2; +static int fd3; static int overflows; +static int overflows_2; + +volatile long the_var; + + +/* + * Use ASM to ensure watchpoint and breakpoint can be triggered + * at one instruction. + */ +#if defined (__x86_64__) +extern void __test_function(volatile long *ptr); +asm ( + ".globl __test_function\n" + "__test_function:\n" + "incq (%rdi)\n" + "ret\n"); +#elif defined (__aarch64__) +extern void __test_function(volatile long *ptr); +asm ( + ".globl __test_function\n" + "__test_function:\n" + "str x30, [x0]\n" + "ret\n"); + +#else +static void __test_function(volatile long *ptr) +{ + *ptr = 0x1234; +} +#endif __attribute__ ((noinline)) static int test_function(void) { + __test_function(&the_var); + the_var++; return time(NULL); } +static void sig_handler_2(int signum __maybe_unused, + siginfo_t *oh __maybe_unused, + void *uc __maybe_unused) +{ + overflows_2++; + if (overflows_2 > 10) { + ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); + ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); + } +} + static void sig_handler(int signum __maybe_unused, siginfo_t *oh __maybe_unused, void *uc __maybe_unused) @@ -54,10 +99,11 @@ static void sig_handler(int signum __maybe_unused, */ ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); } } -static int bp_event(void *fn, int setup_signal) +static int __event(bool is_x, void *addr, int signal) { struct perf_event_attr pe; int fd; @@ -67,8 +113,8 @@ static int bp_event(void *fn, int setup_signal) pe.size = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr); pe.config = 0; - pe.bp_type = HW_BREAKPOINT_X; - pe.bp_addr = (unsigned long) fn; + pe.bp_type = is_x ? HW_BREAKPOINT_X : HW_BREAKPOINT_W; + pe.bp_addr = (unsigned long) addr; pe.bp_len = sizeof(long); pe.sample_period = 1; @@ -86,17 +132,25 @@ static int bp_event(void *fn, int setup_signal) return TEST_FAIL; } - if (setup_signal) { - fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_ASYNC); - fcntl(fd, F_SETSIG, SIGIO); - fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN, getpid()); - } + fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK|O_ASYNC); + fcntl(fd, F_SETSIG, signal); + fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN, getpid()); ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_RESET, 0); return fd; } +static int bp_event(void *addr, int signal) +{ + return __event(true, addr, signal); +} + +static int wp_event(void *addr, int signal) +{ + return __event(false, addr, signal); +} + static long long bp_count(int fd) { long long count; @@ -114,7 +168,7 @@ static long long bp_count(int fd) int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) { struct sigaction sa; - long long count1, count2; + long long count1, count2, count3; /* setup SIGIO signal handler */ memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(struct sigaction)); @@ -126,21 +180,52 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) return TEST_FAIL; } + sa.sa_sigaction = (void *) sig_handler_2; + if (sigaction(SIGUSR1, &sa, NULL) < 0) { + pr_debug("failed setting up signal handler 2\n"); + return TEST_FAIL; + } + /* * We create following events: * - * fd1 - breakpoint event on test_function with SIGIO + * fd1 - breakpoint event on __test_function with SIGIO * signal configured. We should get signal * notification each time the breakpoint is hit * - * fd2 - breakpoint event on sig_handler without SIGIO + * fd2 - breakpoint event on sig_handler with SIGUSR1 + * configured. We should get SIGUSR1 each time when + * breakpoint is hit + * + * fd3 - watchpoint event on __test_function with SIGIO * configured. * * Following processing should happen: - * - execute test_function - * - fd1 event breakpoint hit -> count1 == 1 - * - SIGIO is delivered -> overflows == 1 - * - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 1 + * Exec: Action: Result: + * incq (%rdi) - fd1 event breakpoint hit -> count1 == 1 + * - SIGIO is delivered + * sig_handler - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 1 + * - SIGUSR1 is delivered + * sig_handler_2 -> overflows_2 == 1 (nested signal) + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler_2 + * overflows++ -> overflows = 1 + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler + * incq (%rdi) - fd3 event watchpoint hit -> count3 == 1 (wp and bp in one insn) + * - SIGIO is delivered + * sig_handler - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 2 + * - SIGUSR1 is delivered + * sig_handler_2 -> overflows_2 == 2 (nested signal) + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler_2 + * overflows++ -> overflows = 2 + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler + * the_var++ - fd3 event watchpoint hit -> count3 == 2 (standalone watchpoint) + * - SIGIO is delivered + * sig_handler - fd2 event breakpoint hit -> count2 == 3 + * - SIGUSR1 is delivered + * sig_handler_2 -> overflows_2 == 3 (nested signal) + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler_2 + * overflows++ -> overflows == 3 + * sys_rt_sigreturn - return from sig_handler * * The test case check following error conditions: * - we get stuck in signal handler because of debug @@ -152,11 +237,13 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) * */ - fd1 = bp_event(test_function, 1); - fd2 = bp_event(sig_handler, 0); + fd1 = bp_event(__test_function, SIGIO); + fd2 = bp_event(sig_handler, SIGUSR1); + fd3 = wp_event((void *)&the_var, SIGIO); ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0); ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0); + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0); /* * Kick off the test by trigering 'fd1' @@ -166,15 +253,18 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) ioctl(fd1, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); ioctl(fd2, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); + ioctl(fd3, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0); count1 = bp_count(fd1); count2 = bp_count(fd2); + count3 = bp_count(fd3); close(fd1); close(fd2); + close(fd3); - pr_debug("count1 %lld, count2 %lld, overflow %d\n", - count1, count2, overflows); + pr_debug("count1 %lld, count2 %lld, count3 %lld, overflow %d, overflows_2 %d\n", + count1, count2, count3, overflows, overflows_2); if (count1 != 1) { if (count1 == 11) @@ -183,12 +273,18 @@ int test__bp_signal(int subtest __maybe_unused) pr_debug("failed: wrong count for bp1%lld\n", count1); } - if (overflows != 1) + if (overflows != 3) pr_debug("failed: wrong overflow hit\n"); - if (count2 != 1) + if (overflows_2 != 3) + pr_debug("failed: wrong overflow_2 hit\n"); + + if (count2 != 3) pr_debug("failed: wrong count for bp2\n"); - return count1 == 1 && overflows == 1 && count2 == 1 ? + if (count3 != 2) + pr_debug("failed: wrong count for bp3\n"); + + return count1 == 1 && overflows == 3 && count2 == 3 && overflows_2 == 3 && count3 == 2 ? TEST_OK : TEST_FAIL; }
Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves test__bp_signal so we can test: 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction 2. Nested signals Test result: On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): # ./perf test -v signal 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : --- start --- test child forked, pid 10213 count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 test child finished with 0 ---- end ---- Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> --- tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)