| Message ID | 20130613232111.GA12536@mozilla.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote: > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode > part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip. > > It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing > the data to use the PERF_SAMPLE_IP value, but this works only if the CPU > wasn't in the kernel when the sample was taken. Thanks. I guess we need something similar for arm64 too. Could you cook a similar patch please? Will
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote: > > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode > > part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip. > > > > It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing > > the data to use the PERF_SAMPLE_IP value, but this works only if the CPU > > wasn't in the kernel when the sample was taken. > > Thanks. I guess we need something similar for arm64 too. Could you cook a > similar patch please? Done (and tested, on the ARM V8 Foundation Model). It looked as if the powerpc and sparc ports might have similar issues, but I haven't checked on them yet. --Jed
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 04:17:06AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote: > > > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode > > > part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip. > > > > > > It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing > > > the data to use the PERF_SAMPLE_IP value, but this works only if the CPU > > > wasn't in the kernel when the sample was taken. > > > > Thanks. I guess we need something similar for arm64 too. Could you cook a > > similar patch please? > > Done (and tested, on the ARM V8 Foundation Model). Wow, I didn't expect you to test it. Thanks! > It looked as if the powerpc and sparc ports might have similar issues, > but I haven't checked on them yet. I can extract some hardware from the pile in the corner of my flat if you want a hand with testing. Will
Will Deacon [will.deacon@arm.com] wrote:
| On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 04:17:06AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
| > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
| > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:21:11AM +0100, Jed Davis wrote:
| > > > With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode
| > > > part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip.
| > > >
| > > > It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing
| > > > the data to use the PERF_SAMPLE_IP value, but this works only if the CPU
| > > > wasn't in the kernel when the sample was taken.
| > >
| > > Thanks. I guess we need something similar for arm64 too. Could you cook a
| > > similar patch please?
| >
| > Done (and tested, on the ARM V8 Foundation Model).
|
| Wow, I didn't expect you to test it. Thanks!
|
| > It looked as if the powerpc and sparc ports might have similar issues,
| > but I haven't checked on them yet.
|
| I can extract some hardware from the pile in the corner of my flat if you
| want a hand with testing.
Interesting. Powerpc already saves the next_ip for the first entry:
arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.c:
perf_callchain_user_64():
...
next_ip = perf_instruction_pointer(regs);
lr = regs->link;
sp = regs->gpr[1];
perf_callchain_store(entry, next_ip);
for (;;) {
Do you have a test case/output that I can run on Power ?
We actually have the opposite problem where we see duplication in
callchains like this. We considered not saving the "link register"
but that seems to break for a "leaf-node" functions.
13.65% sprintft libc-2.12.so [.] __random
|
--- __random
|
|--62.82%-- __random
| |
| |--97.31%-- rand
| | do_my_sprintf
| | main
| | generic_start_main
| | __libc_start_main
| | 0x0
| |
| --2.69%-- do_my_sprintf
| main
| generic_start_main
| __libc_start_main
| 0x0
|
--37.18%-- rand
|
|--93.30%-- rand
| do_my_sprintf
| main
| generic_start_main
| __libc_start_main
| 0x0
|
--6.70%-- do_my_sprintf
main
generic_start_main
__libc_start_main
0x0
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c index 8c3094d..d9f5cd4 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c @@ -569,6 +569,7 @@ perf_callchain_user(struct perf_callchain_entry *entry, struct pt_regs *regs) return; } + perf_callchain_store(entry, regs->ARM_pc); tail = (struct frame_tail __user *)regs->ARM_fp - 1; while ((entry->nr < PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH) &&
With this change, we no longer lose the innermost entry in the user-mode part of the call chain. See also the x86 port, which includes the ip. It's possible to partially work around this problem by post-processing the data to use the PERF_SAMPLE_IP value, but this works only if the CPU wasn't in the kernel when the sample was taken. Signed-off-by: Jed Davis <jld@mozilla.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)