[PATCH] tests/bpf: Fix the bpf test to check for libtraceevent support

[Athira Rajeev]

> On 02-Feb-2023, at 6:27 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Em Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Athira Rajeev escreveu:
>> "bpf" tests fails in environment with missing libtraceevent
>> support as below:
>> 
>> # ./perf test 36
>> 36: BPF filter                                                      :
>> 36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : FAILED!
>> 36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : FAILED!
>> 36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : FAILED!
>> 
>> The environment has clang but missing the libtraceevent
>> devel. Hence perf is compiled without libtraceevent support.
> 
> Thanks, applied.

Hi,

Thanks for checking

Arnaldo, this is applied to tmp.perf/core branch ?

Athira 
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> 
>> Detailed logs:
>> 	./perf test -v "Basic BPF filtering"
>> 
>> 	Failed to add BPF event syscalls:sys_enter_epoll_pwait
>> 	bpf: tracepoint call back failed, stop iterate
>> 	Failed to add events selected by BPF
>> 
>> The bpf tests tris to add probe event which fails
>> at "parse_events_add_tracepoint" function due to missing
>> libtraceevent. Add check for "HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT" in the
>> "tests/bpf.c" before proceeding with the test.
>> 
>> With the change,
>> 
>> 	# ./perf test 36
>> 	36: BPF filter                                                      :
>> 	36.1: Basic BPF filtering                                           : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 	36.2: BPF pinning                                                   : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 	36.3: BPF prologue generation                                       : Skip (not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support)
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/tests/bpf.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> index 17c023823713..4af39528f611 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bpf.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>> #define NR_ITERS       111
>> #define PERF_TEST_BPF_PATH "/sys/fs/bpf/perf_test"
>> 
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> #include <linux/bpf.h>
>> #include <bpf/bpf.h>
>> 
>> @@ -330,10 +330,10 @@ static int test__bpf(int i)
>> static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 				int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(0);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> @@ -341,10 +341,10 @@ static int test__basic_bpf_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 			     int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(1);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> @@ -352,17 +352,17 @@ static int test__bpf_pinning(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> static int test__bpf_prologue_test(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused,
>> 				   int subtest __maybe_unused)
>> {
>> -#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE)
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_BPF_PROLOGUE) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	return test__bpf(2);
>> #else
>> -	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF support is not compiled\n");
>> +	pr_debug("Skip BPF test because BPF or libtraceevent support is not compiled\n");
>> 	return TEST_SKIP;
>> #endif
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>> -#ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT
>> +#if defined(HAVE_LIBBPF_SUPPORT) && defined(HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT)
>> 	TEST_CASE("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test),
>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning,
>> 			"clang isn't installed or environment missing BPF support"),
>> @@ -373,9 +373,9 @@ static struct test_case bpf_tests[] = {
>> 	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>> #endif
>> #else
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in"),
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in"),
>> -	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("Basic BPF filtering", basic_bpf_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF pinning", bpf_pinning, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> +	TEST_CASE_REASON("BPF prologue generation", bpf_prologue_test, "not compiled in or missing libtraceevent support"),
>> #endif
>> 	{ .name = NULL, }
>> };
>> -- 
>> 2.39.0
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo