On Freitag, 2. November 2018 12:26:35 CET Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:08:18PM +0100, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 30. Oktober 2018 23:34:35 CET Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 16:48:18 CET Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > Can someone at least confirm whether unwinding from a function
> > > > > prologue
> > > > > via
> > > > > .eh_frame (but without .debug_frame) should actually be possible?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes it should be possible. Asynchronous unwind tables should work
> > > > from any instruction.
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > > We can find `7f91345bdaf8+1 = 7f91345bdaf9" at offset 16 (search for "f9
> > > da
> > > 5b 34 91 7f"). Using that address makes unwinding work for this sample.
> > > What could be the reason for this shift?
> > 
> > I believe I have found the culprit: PEBS seems to be at fault here - i.e.
> > the RIP/RSP and the ustack dump of the sample simply don't fit together.
> > 
> > Check this out:
> > 
> > ```
> > $ for i in $(seq 10); do perf record -q -e "cycles:" --call-graph dwarf
> > ./cpp- inlining > /dev/null; perf script | pcre2grep -c -M
> > "hypot_finite.*\n.*\ [unknown\]"; done
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 
> > $ for i in $(seq 10); do perf record -q -e "cycles:p" --call-graph dwarf
> > ./
> > cpp-inlining > /dev/null; perf script | pcre2grep -c -M
> > "hypot_finite.*\n.*\ [unknown\]"; done
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 0
> > 
> > $ for i in $(seq 10); do perf record -q -e "cycles:pp" --call-graph dwarf
> > ./ cpp-inlining > /dev/null; perf script | pcre2grep -c -M
> > "hypot_finite.*\n.*\ [unknown\]"; done
> > 37
> > 39
> > 35
> > 28
> > 40
> > 39
> > 29
> > 37
> > 31
> > 26
> > 
> > $ for i in $(seq 10); do perf record -q -e "cycles:ppp" --call-graph dwarf
> > ./ cpp-inlining > /dev/null; perf script | pcre2grep -c -M
> > "hypot_finite.*\n.*\ [unknown\]"; done
> > 79
> > 70
> > 76
> > 77
> > 70
> > 90
> > 64
> > 78
> > 86
> > 74
> > ```
> > 
> > Note how precise levels 0 and 1 do not produce any samples where unwinding
> > fails. But precise level 2 produces some, and precise level 3 increases
> > the
> > amount (by ca. ~2x).
> > 
> > I can reproduce this pattern on two separate Intel CPUs and kernel
> > versions
> > currently:
> > 
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz with 4.18.16-arch1-1-ARCH
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 4.14.78-1-lts
> > 
> > Could someone else try this? What about AMD and IBS - is it also affected?
> > What about newer/different Intel CPUs?
> 
> I tried on intel and can't actualy see that.. how do the failed samples
> look like? like is there the stack dump attached, what's in the regs?
> 
> could you please paste the 'perf report -D' output for some of the
> failed samples?

See here for one case: https://paste.kde.org/prryvdilq

What Intel CPU did you use? What microcode version? Which kernel version?

Generally, isn't what I'm seeing actually a neccessary evil of the ustack 
based unwinding in perf? I mean, the general procedure is as follows if I'm 
not mistaken:

- PMU triggers interrupt and PEBS stores RIP etc.
- code continous to execute, possibly changing the stack
- PMU interrupt is handled, and a perf sample is generated
  - register values are used from "past" status stored in PEBS
  - but ustack dump is based on the "current" status

From this latter discrepancy, it must directly follow that *sometimes* the 
ustack dump represents a state that cannot be unwound from, no?

Cheers
-- 
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts