On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 01:43:20 +0900 Masami Hiramatsu mhiramat@kernel.org wrote:
Add a testcase for tracing_cpumask with function tracer.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu mhiramat@kernel.org
.../selftests/ftrace/test.d/ftrace/func_cpumask.tc | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/ftrace/func_cpumask.tc
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/ftrace/func_cpumask.tc b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/ftrace/func_cpumask.tc new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..37420e355445 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/ftrace/func_cpumask.tc @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +#!/bin/sh +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL2.0 +# description: ftrace - function trace with cpumask
+NP=`grep "^processor" /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l`
A better way to find the number of CPUs is to either use "nproc" or just look at /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu[0-9]*. Because what I learned from experience is that searching for strings in /proc/cpuinfo is not cross arch compatible. For example, other archs don't use "processor" in the stings and would come up with a box with 0 CPUs. Something we've been working on for some time ;-)
-- Steve
+if [ $NP -eq 1 ] ;then
- echo "We can not test cpumask on UP environment"
- exit_unresolved
+fi
+do_reset() {
- echo ffff > tracing_cpumask
Why ffff? Should we save what was in tracing_cpumask first and just reuse it?
-- Steve
+}
+echo 0 > tracing_on +echo > trace +: "Bitmask only record on CPU1" +echo 2 > tracing_cpumask +MASK=0x`cat tracing_cpumask` +test `printf "%d" $MASK` -eq 2 || do_reset
+echo function > current_tracer +echo 1 > tracing_on +(echo "forked") +echo 0 > tracing_on
+: "Check CPU1 events are recorded" +grep -q -e "[001]" trace || do_reset
+: "There should be No other cpu events" +! grep -qv -e "[001]" -e "^#" trace || do_reset
+do_reset