V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.

There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
throttling.

[1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com

Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
---
 tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
--- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
@@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
     err=1
     return
   fi
+  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
+  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
+  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
+  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
+  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
+  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
   index=0
-  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
+  valid_counts=0
+  invalid_counts=0
+  tolerance_rate=0.8
   while IFS= read -r line
   do
-    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
     cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
     if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
     then
-      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
-      err=1
-      return
+      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
+    else
+      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
     fi
     index=$(($index+1))
     prev_cycles=$cycles
   done < "${script_output}"
-  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
+  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
+  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
+  then
+    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
+    err=1
+    return
+  fi
+  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")
+  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
+  then
+     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
+     err=1
+  else
+    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
+  fi
 }
 
 test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
-- 
2.45.2

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
> V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
> V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.
> 
> There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
> throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
> maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
> accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
> throttling.
> 
> [1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>

But who is the author? As-is this patch states Thomas Richter as the
author, but since there is also a Suggested-by and Tested-by Thomas
Richter, it makes me believe the author is Chun-Tse Shao, is that the
case?

- Arnaldo

> Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> @@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
>      err=1
>      return
>    fi
> +  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
> +  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
> +  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
> +  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
> +  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
> +  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
>    index=0
> -  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
> +  valid_counts=0
> +  invalid_counts=0
> +  tolerance_rate=0.8
>    while IFS= read -r line
>    do
> -    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
>      cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
>      if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
>      then
> -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> -      err=1
> -      return
> +      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
> +    else
> +      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
>      fi
>      index=$(($index+1))
>      prev_cycles=$cycles
>    done < "${script_output}"
> -  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> +  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
> +  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
> +  then
> +    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
> +    err=1
> +    return
> +  fi
> +  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")
> +  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
> +  then
> +     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> +     err=1
> +  else
> +    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> +  fi
>  }
>  
>  test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
> -- 
> 2.45.2

Hi Arnaldo,

I submitted the patch v1 and Thomas helped me to modify and submit v2
and v3 while I was OOO. In this case I am not sure which one should be
the author, maybe just keep it as Thomas.

Thanks,
CT

On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 9:35 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> > V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
> > V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
> > V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.
> >
> > There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
> > throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
> > maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
> > accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
> > throttling.
> >
> > [1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> > Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
>
> But who is the author? As-is this patch states Thomas Richter as the
> author, but since there is also a Suggested-by and Tested-by Thomas
> Richter, it makes me believe the author is Chun-Tse Shao, is that the
> case?
>
> - Arnaldo
>
> > Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
> > --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > @@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
> >      err=1
> >      return
> >    fi
> > +  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
> > +  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
> > +  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
> > +  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
> > +  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
> > +  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
> >    index=0
> > -  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
> > +  valid_counts=0
> > +  invalid_counts=0
> > +  tolerance_rate=0.8
> >    while IFS= read -r line
> >    do
> > -    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
> >      cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
> >      if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
> >      then
> > -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> > -      err=1
> > -      return
> > +      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
> > +    else
> > +      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
> >      fi
> >      index=$(($index+1))
> >      prev_cycles=$cycles
> >    done < "${script_output}"
> > -  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> > +  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
> > +  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
> > +  then
> > +    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
> > +    err=1
> > +    return
> > +  fi
> > +  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")
> > +  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
> > +  then
> > +     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> > +     err=1
> > +  else
> > +    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> > +  fi
> >  }
> >
> >  test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
> > --
> > 2.45.2

On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:21:07AM -0700, Chun-Tse Shao wrote:
> Hi Arnaldo,
> 
> I submitted the patch v1 and Thomas helped me to modify and submit v2
> and v3 while I was OOO. In this case I am not sure which one should be
> the author, maybe just keep it as Thomas.

From the tags provided, I think it would be best to list you as the
author and Thomas a a Co-developer, like mentioned in:

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst

Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.  Since
Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author.  Standard sign-off
procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:.  Notably, the last
Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.

Note, the From: tag is optional when the From: author is also the person (and
email) listed in the From: line of the email header.

Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::

        <changelog>

        Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
        Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
        Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
        Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
        Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>

Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::

        From: From Author <from@author.example.org>

        <changelog>

        Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
        Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
        Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
        Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
        Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
 
> Thanks,
> CT
> 
> On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 9:35 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> > > V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
> > > V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
> > > V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.
> > >
> > > There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
> > > throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
> > > maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
> > > accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
> > > throttling.
> > >
> > > [1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> >
> > But who is the author? As-is this patch states Thomas Richter as the
> > author, but since there is also a Suggested-by and Tested-by Thomas
> > Richter, it makes me believe the author is Chun-Tse Shao, is that the
> > case?
> >
> > - Arnaldo
> >
> > > Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > > index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
> > > --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > > @@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
> > >      err=1
> > >      return
> > >    fi
> > > +  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
> > > +  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
> > > +  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
> > > +  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
> > > +  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
> > > +  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
> > >    index=0
> > > -  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
> > > +  valid_counts=0
> > > +  invalid_counts=0
> > > +  tolerance_rate=0.8
> > >    while IFS= read -r line
> > >    do
> > > -    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
> > >      cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
> > >      if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
> > >      then
> > > -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> > > -      err=1
> > > -      return
> > > +      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
> > > +    else
> > > +      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
> > >      fi
> > >      index=$(($index+1))
> > >      prev_cycles=$cycles
> > >    done < "${script_output}"
> > > -  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> > > +  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
> > > +  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
> > > +  then
> > > +    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
> > > +    err=1
> > > +    return
> > > +  fi
> > > +  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")
> > > +  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
> > > +  then
> > > +     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> > > +     err=1
> > > +  else
> > > +    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> > > +  fi
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
> > > --
> > > 2.45.2

On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 04:11:55PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:21:07AM -0700, Chun-Tse Shao wrote:
> > Hi Arnaldo,
> > 
> > I submitted the patch v1 and Thomas helped me to modify and submit v2
> > and v3 while I was OOO. In this case I am not sure which one should be
> > the author, maybe just keep it as Thomas.
> 
> >From the tags provided, I think it would be best to list you as the
> author and Thomas a a Co-developer, like mentioned in:
> 
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> 
> Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
> it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
> attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.  Since
> Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author.  Standard sign-off
> procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
> chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
> the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:.  Notably, the last
> Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
> 
> Note, the From: tag is optional when the From: author is also the person (and
> email) listed in the From: line of the email header.
> 
> Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
> 
>         <changelog>
> 
>         Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
>         Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
>         Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
>         Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
>         Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
> 
> Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
> 
>         From: From Author <from@author.example.org>
> 
>         <changelog>
> 
>         Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
>         Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
>         Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
>         Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
>         Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>

I was expecting some reaction from you or Thomas, but since I got a ping
from Thomas for this not being processed, I'll process it according to
my assessment of this thread.

Thanks,

- Arnaldo


>  
> > Thanks,
> > CT
> > 
> > On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 9:35 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> > > > V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
> > > > V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
> > > > V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.
> > > >
> > > > There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
> > > > throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
> > > > maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
> > > > accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
> > > > throttling.
> > > >
> > > > [1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> > > > Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > > > Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > But who is the author? As-is this patch states Thomas Richter as the
> > > author, but since there is also a Suggested-by and Tested-by Thomas
> > > Richter, it makes me believe the author is Chun-Tse Shao, is that the
> > > case?
> > >
> > > - Arnaldo
> > >
> > > > Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > > > index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> > > > @@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
> > > >      err=1
> > > >      return
> > > >    fi
> > > > +  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
> > > > +  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
> > > > +  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
> > > > +  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
> > > > +  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
> > > > +  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
> > > >    index=0
> > > > -  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
> > > > +  valid_counts=0
> > > > +  invalid_counts=0
> > > > +  tolerance_rate=0.8
> > > >    while IFS= read -r line
> > > >    do
> > > > -    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
> > > >      cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
> > > >      if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
> > > >      then
> > > > -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> > > > -      err=1
> > > > -      return
> > > > +      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
> > > > +    else
> > > > +      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
> > > >      fi
> > > >      index=$(($index+1))
> > > >      prev_cycles=$cycles
> > > >    done < "${script_output}"
> > > > -  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> > > > +  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
> > > > +  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
> > > > +  then
> > > > +    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
> > > > +    err=1
> > > > +    return
> > > > +  fi
> > > > +  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")
> > > > +  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
> > > > +  then
> > > > +     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> > > > +     err=1
> > > > +  else
> > > > +    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> > > > +  fi
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
> > > > --
> > > > 2.45.2

On 5/15/25 17:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 04:11:55PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 11:21:07AM -0700, Chun-Tse Shao wrote:
>>> Hi Arnaldo,
>>>
>>> I submitted the patch v1 and Thomas helped me to modify and submit v2
>>> and v3 while I was OOO. In this case I am not sure which one should be
>>> the author, maybe just keep it as Thomas.
>>
>> >From the tags provided, I think it would be best to list you as the
>> author and Thomas a a Co-developer, like mentioned in:
>>
>> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>>
>> Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
>> it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
>> attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.  Since
>> Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
>> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author.  Standard sign-off
>> procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
>> chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
>> the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:.  Notably, the last
>> Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
>>
>> Note, the From: tag is optional when the From: author is also the person (and
>> email) listed in the From: line of the email header.
>>
>> Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
>>
>>         <changelog>
>>
>>         Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
>>
>> Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
>>
>>         From: From Author <from@author.example.org>
>>
>>         <changelog>
>>
>>         Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
>>         Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
>>         Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
> 
> I was expecting some reaction from you or Thomas, but since I got a ping
> from Thomas for this not being processed, I'll process it according to
> my assessment of this thread.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> 

Thanks Arnaldo,

sorry, but I was not aware that you were waiting for feedback from us.
I am fine with your assessment, I actually care more about the patch
being picked...

-- 
Thomas Richter, Dept 3303, IBM s390 Linux Development, Boeblingen, Germany
--
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH

Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Wolfgang Wendt

Geschäftsführung: David Faller

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:
> V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
> V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
> V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.
> 
> There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
> throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
> maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
> accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
> throttling.
> 
> [1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> @@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
>      err=1
>      return
>    fi
> +  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
> +  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
> +  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
> +  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
> +  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
> +  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
>    index=0
> -  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
> +  valid_counts=0
> +  invalid_counts=0
> +  tolerance_rate=0.8
>    while IFS= read -r line
>    do
> -    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
>      cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
>      if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
>      then
> -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> -      err=1
> -      return
> +      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
> +    else
> +      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
>      fi
>      index=$(($index+1))
>      prev_cycles=$cycles
>    done < "${script_output}"
> -  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> +  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
> +  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
> +  then
> +    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
> +    err=1
> +    return
> +  fi
> +  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")

I think the 'if-else' part can be omitted but I can live with that. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung


> +  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
> +  then
> +     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> +     err=1
> +  else
> +    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> +  fi
>  }
>  
>  test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
> -- 
> 2.45.2
>

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 7:06 AM Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> V4: Update to be applied onto linux-next
> V3: Added check for missing samples as suggested by Chun-Tse.
> V2: Changed bc invocation to return 0 on success and 1 on error.
>
> There is a known issue that the leader sampling is inconsistent, since
> throttle only affect leader, not the slave. The detail is in [1]. To
> maintain test coverage, this patch sets a tolerance rate of 80% to
> accommodate the throttled samples and prevent test failures due to
> throttling.
>
> [1] lore.kernel.org/20250328182752.769662-1-ctshao@google.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> Suggested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>

Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>

Thanks,
Ian

> ---
>  tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> index 05d91a663fda..587f62e34414 100755
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/shell/record.sh
> @@ -240,22 +240,43 @@ test_leader_sampling() {
>      err=1
>      return
>    fi
> +  perf script -i "${perfdata}" | grep brstack > $script_output
> +  # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record.
> +  # However, the throttling code doesn't consider event grouping. During throttling, only the
> +  # leader is stopped, causing the slave's counts significantly higher. To temporarily solve this,
> +  # let's set the tolerance rate to 80%.
> +  # TODO: Revert the code for tolerance once the throttling mechanism is fixed.
>    index=0
> -  perf script -i "${perfdata}" > "${script_output}"
> +  valid_counts=0
> +  invalid_counts=0
> +  tolerance_rate=0.8
>    while IFS= read -r line
>    do
> -    # Check if the two instruction counts are equal in each record
>      cycles=$(echo $line | awk '{for(i=1;i<=NF;i++) if($i=="cycles:") print $(i-1)}')
>      if [ $(($index%2)) -ne 0 ] && [ ${cycles}x != ${prev_cycles}x ]
>      then
> -      echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> -      err=1
> -      return
> +      invalid_counts=$(($invalid_counts+1))
> +    else
> +      valid_counts=$(($valid_counts+1))
>      fi
>      index=$(($index+1))
>      prev_cycles=$cycles
>    done < "${script_output}"
> -  echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> +  total_counts=$(bc <<< "$invalid_counts+$valid_counts")
> +  if (( $(bc <<< "$total_counts <= 0") ))
> +  then
> +    echo "Leader sampling [No sample generated]"
> +    err=1
> +    return
> +  fi
> +  isok=$(bc <<< "scale=2; if (($invalid_counts/$total_counts) < (1-$tolerance_rate)) { 0 } else { 1 };")
> +  if [ $isok -eq 1 ]
> +  then
> +     echo "Leader sampling [Failed inconsistent cycles count]"
> +     err=1
> +  else
> +    echo "Basic leader sampling test [Success]"
> +  fi
>  }
>
>  test_topdown_leader_sampling() {
> --
> 2.45.2
>