On 2017/06/29 09:57AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:13:24 +0530 > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On 2017/06/28 11:16PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/kprobe_eventname.tc > > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/kprobe_eventname.tc > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..d259031 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/kprobe_eventname.tc > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > > > > > +#!/bin/sh > > > > > +# description: Kprobe event auto/manual naming > > > > > + > > > > > +disable_events > > > > > +echo > kprobe_events > > > > > + > > > > > +:;: "Add an event on function without name" ;: > > > > > + > > > > > +FUNC=`grep -m 10 " [tT] [^.]*$" /proc/kallsyms | tail -n 1 | cut -f > > > > > 3 -d " "` > > > > > > > > On powerpc, this always ends up using a blacklisted function. So, I > > > > think we need a way to find a function that is not black listed. > > > > > > Hmm, if we increase the -m argument, like -m 100, is that still > > > in a blacklisted function? > > > > Yes, most of the initial symbols are exception vectors which are > > blacklisted. > > Hmm, then how about this? :) > > grep _stext -A 1000 | grep -m 10 " [tT] [^.]*$" /proc/kallsyms
That just happened to block the test ;) I think your suggestion to use schedule/vfs_read is probably the best option. I will update your patch and post it. > > > > > > > > > > However, one of the issues is that debugfs does not show all the > > > > address > > > > ranges that are blacklisted. I am coming up with a way to address that > > > > and will post patches once I have it working. > > > > > > Would you find that is only on powerpc or generic issue? > > > > I meant the address _ranges_ that are blacklisted such as the ones with > > __kprobes annotation and __entry_text and so on. > > I see, but we can also check the address by comparing the address > of symbols, which also can be retrieved from kallsyms. Yes, but this is very platform specific and will result in a lot of checks, arm64 especially. > Since the test case is also applied to stable kernel, I don't want > to make it depending on some special kernel tweaks. Sure, makes sense. For now, I think it's best to keep the test simple. But, we can enhance these later to consider the blacklist. Thanks, Naveen > > > > > > > > > > > > With those patches, we should be able to select symbols that are not > > > > blacklisted. > > > > > > Or, maybe we can use generic function, like "schedule" or "vfs_read" > > > etc. > > > > Yes, I think this will be good for the generic test, but may not help > > selecting a dot symbol on powerpc. > > Right, and it depends on what gcc version and option is specified. > So, maybe we can skip the test if there is no such symbols. > > I intended to test the symbols with some dot-suffix, but it seems > ppc64 has dot-started symbols, right? If there is no dot-suffixed > symbols, I think this test should skip the test case. > > Thank you, > > > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> >
