Re: [PATCH 17/53] perf test: Improve bp_signal

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:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:37:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

quoted

Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Cc: Will Deacon <redacted>

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