pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: papi qa issue

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: papi qa issue
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:17:39 -0500
Cc: "'PCP'" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <00b601d0584e$78397830$68ac6890$@internode.on.net>
References: <007d01d057ed$6de34160$49a9c420$@internode.on.net> <y0msidi5k2y.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <00a901d0584a$1a1ac2d0$4e504870$@internode.on.net> <20150306202631.GF27936@xxxxxxxxxx> <00b601d0584e$78397830$68ac6890$@internode.on.net>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 07:45:22AM +1100, Ken McDonell wrote:
> [...]
> I am sure the h/w supports this ... the tests run and pass on the native
> machine running a Debian derivative.  This would seem to support that
> hypothesis ...

Sure, but that's the native kernel & possibly a newer version of papi.
Through KVM and an older guest kernel, bets are off.


> Since this involves several tests, seems like the _pmu_present() function
> should be factored out of all of these tests an put in common.check (or
> somewhere similar) and then generalized to accommodate the restriction
> you've suggested.  

Sounds about right.

> The only issue here is that papi_avail is not installed by default,
> so we introduce yet another package dependency for QA and I can't
> even find a package containing papi_avail for a standard Debian
> distro.

Yeah, the papi-tools weren't always packaged with older debian, though
see <http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=papi-tools>.

Another option could be to attempt to install the pmda, and check out
the papi.available.num_counters metric for non-zeroness.

Or, stretching the effort perhaps too far, qa/src could include a
minimal papi client binary - a stripped-down version of papi_avail,
that just gives us a papi-support smoke-test output.


- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>