Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] perf test: Test pmu-events aliases

[John Garry]

On 19/03/2020 18:36, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:07:30PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 04:41:04PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > On 17/03/2020 16:20, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 07:02:19PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > > > @@ -36,6 +51,8 @@ static struct perf_pmu_test_event test_cpu_events[] = {
> > > > >    			.desc = "Number of segment register loads",
> > > > >    			.topic = "other",
> > > > >    		},
> > > > > +		.alias_str = "umask=0x80,(null)=0x30d40,event=0x6",
>
> > > > ah so we are using other pmus because of the format definitions
>
> > > > why is there the '(null)' in there?
>
> > > Well this is just coming from the generated alias string in the pmu code,
> > > and it does not seem to be handling "period" argument properly. It needs to
> > > be checked.
>   
> > nice, it found first issue already ;-)

thanks

> Applied the series to perf/core, good job! What about the fix for the
> above (null) problem?

So I had started to look at that, but then the codepath lead into the 
lex parsing, which I am not familiar with.

So from when we parse the event terms in parse_events_terms(), we get 3x 
terms:
config=umask, then newval=umask=0x80
confg=(null), then newval=umask=0x80,(null)=x030d40
config=event, then newval=umask=0x80,(null)=x030d40,event=0x6

I can continue to look. Maybe jirka has an idea on this and what happens 
in the lex parsing.

Cheers,
John