All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>,
	John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
	Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] perf arm64: inject missing frames if perf-record used "--call-graph=fp"
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 08:35:05 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yb3HaQrm1RuI52/j@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <207eade3-6719-f028-22a1-d050c10288e0@arm.com>

Em Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 04:01:38PM +0000, James Clark escreveu:
> 
> 
> On 17/12/2021 15:45, German Gomez wrote:
> > From: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
> > 
> > When unwinding using frame pointers on ARM64, the return address of the
> > current function may not have been pushed into the stack when a function
> > was interrupted, which makes perf show an incorrect call graph to the
> > user.
> > 
> > Consider the following example program:
> > 
> >   void leaf() {
> >       /* long computation */
> >   }
> > 
> >   void parent() {
> >       // (1)
> >       leaf();
> >       // (2)
> >   }
> > 
> >   ... could be compiled into (using gcc -fno-inline -fno-omit-frame-pointer):
> > 
> >   leaf:
> >       /* long computation */
> >       nop
> >       ret
> >   parent:
> >       // (1)
> >       stp     x29, x30, [sp, -16]!
> >       mov     x29, sp
> >       bl      parent
> >       nop
> >       ldp     x29, x30, [sp], 16
> >       // (2)
> >       ret
> > 
> > If the program is interrupted at (1), (2), or any point in "leaf:", the
> > call graph will skip the callers of the current function. We can unwind
> > using the dwarf info and check if the return addr is the same as the LR
> > register, and inject the missing frame into the call graph.
> > 
> > Before this patch, the above example shows the following call-graph when
> > recording using "--call-graph fp" mode in ARM64:
> > 
> >   # Children      Self  Command   Shared Object     Symbol
> >   # ........  ........  ........  ................  ......................
> >   #
> >       99.86%    99.86%  program3  program3          [.] leaf
> >   	    |
> >   	    ---_start
> >   	       __libc_start_main
> >   	       main
> >   	       leaf
> > 
> > As can be seen, the "parent" function is missing. This is specially
> > problematic in "leaf" because for leaf functions the compiler may always
> > omit pushing the return addr into the stack. After this patch, it shows
> > the correct graph:
> > 
> >   # Children      Self  Command   Shared Object     Symbol
> >   # ........  ........  ........  ................  ......................
> >   #
> >       99.86%    99.86%  program3  program3          [.] leaf
> >   	    |
> >   	    ---_start
> >   	       __libc_start_main
> >   	       main
> >   	       parent
> >   	       leaf
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/util/Build                         |  1 +
> >  .../util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h | 10 +++
> >  tools/perf/util/machine.c                     | 19 ++++--
> >  tools/perf/util/machine.h                     |  1 +
> >  5 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/Build b/tools/perf/util/Build
> > index 2e5bfbb69960..03d4c647bd86 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/Build
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/Build
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > +perf-y += arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.o
> >  perf-y += annotate.o
> >  perf-y += block-info.o
> >  perf-y += block-range.o
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..4f5ecf51ed38
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include "arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h"
> > +#include "callchain.h"
> > +#include "event.h"
> > +#include "perf_regs.h" // SMPL_REG_MASK
> > +#include "unwind.h"
> > +
> > +#define perf_event_arm_regs perf_event_arm64_regs
> > +#include "../arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h"
> > +#undef perf_event_arm_regs
> > +
> > +struct entries {
> > +	u64 stack[2];
> > +	size_t length;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static bool get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(struct perf_sample *sample)
> > +{
> > +	return callchain_param.record_mode == CALLCHAIN_FP && sample->user_regs.regs
> > +		&& sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_LR);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int add_entry(struct unwind_entry *entry, void *arg)
> > +{
> > +	struct entries *entries = arg;
> > +
> > +	entries->stack[entries->length++] = entry->ip;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread, int usr_idx)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	struct entries entries = {};
> > +	struct regs_dump old_regs = sample->user_regs;
> > +
> > +	if (!get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(sample))
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If PC and SP are not recorded, get the value of PC from the stack
> > +	 * and set its mask. SP is not used when doing the unwinding but it
> > +	 * still needs to be set to prevent failures.
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	if (!(sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_PC))) {
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_mask |= SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_PC);
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_PC] = sample->callchain->ips[usr_idx+1];
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!(sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_SP))) {
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_mask |= SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_SP);
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP] = 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = unwind__get_entries(add_entry, &entries, thread, sample, 2);
> > +	sample->user_regs = old_regs;
> > +
> > +	if (ret || entries.length != 2)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	return callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLER ? entries.stack[0] : entries.stack[1];
> > +}
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..32af9ce94398
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +#ifndef __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H
> > +#define __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H
> > +
> > +#include "event.h"
> > +#include "thread.h"
> > +
> > +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread, int user_idx);
> > +
> > +#endif /* __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H */
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > index 3eddad009f78..a00fd6796b35 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> >  #include "bpf-event.h"
> >  #include <internal/lib.h> // page_size
> >  #include "cgroup.h"
> > +#include "arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h"
> >  
> >  #include <linux/ctype.h>
> >  #include <symbol/kallsyms.h>
> > @@ -2710,10 +2711,13 @@ static int find_prev_cpumode(struct ip_callchain *chain, struct thread *thread,
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static u64 get_leaf_frame_caller(struct perf_sample *sample __maybe_unused,
> > -		struct thread *thread __maybe_unused, int usr_idx __maybe_unused)
> > +static u64 get_leaf_frame_caller(struct perf_sample *sample,
> > +		struct thread *thread, int usr_idx)
> >  {
> > -	return 0;
> > +	if (machine__normalize_is(thread->maps->machine, "arm64"))
> > +		return get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(sample, thread, usr_idx);
> > +	else
> > +		return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int thread__resolve_callchain_sample(struct thread *thread,
> > @@ -3114,14 +3118,19 @@ int machine__set_current_tid(struct machine *machine, int cpu, pid_t pid,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * Compares the raw arch string. N.B. see instead perf_env__arch() if a
> > - * normalized arch is needed.
> > + * Compares the raw arch string. N.B. see instead perf_env__arch() or
> > + * machine__normalize_is() if a normalized arch is needed.
> >   */
> >  bool machine__is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch)
> >  {
> >  	return machine && !strcmp(perf_env__raw_arch(machine->env), arch);
> >  }
> >  
> > +bool machine__normalize_is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch)
> > +{
> > +	return machine && !strcmp(perf_env__arch(machine->env), arch);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> I think this function name would be clearer as something like "machine__normalized_is" or
> "machine__normalized_arch_is". The tense is slightly off because it's a test rather than a
> verb.

Agreed, its a question, not a command.

- Arnaldo
 
> With that change, for the whole set:
> 
> Reviewed-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
> 
> 
> >  int machine__nr_cpus_avail(struct machine *machine)
> >  {
> >  	return machine ? perf_env__nr_cpus_avail(machine->env) : 0;
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.h b/tools/perf/util/machine.h
> > index a143087eeb47..665535153411 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.h
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.h
> > @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ static inline bool machine__is_host(struct machine *machine)
> >  }
> >  
> >  bool machine__is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch);
> > +bool machine__normalize_is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch);
> >  int machine__nr_cpus_avail(struct machine *machine);
> >  
> >  struct thread *__machine__findnew_thread(struct machine *machine, pid_t pid, pid_t tid);
> > 

-- 

- Arnaldo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>,
	John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
	Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] perf arm64: inject missing frames if perf-record used "--call-graph=fp"
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 08:35:05 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yb3HaQrm1RuI52/j@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <207eade3-6719-f028-22a1-d050c10288e0@arm.com>

Em Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 04:01:38PM +0000, James Clark escreveu:
> 
> 
> On 17/12/2021 15:45, German Gomez wrote:
> > From: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
> > 
> > When unwinding using frame pointers on ARM64, the return address of the
> > current function may not have been pushed into the stack when a function
> > was interrupted, which makes perf show an incorrect call graph to the
> > user.
> > 
> > Consider the following example program:
> > 
> >   void leaf() {
> >       /* long computation */
> >   }
> > 
> >   void parent() {
> >       // (1)
> >       leaf();
> >       // (2)
> >   }
> > 
> >   ... could be compiled into (using gcc -fno-inline -fno-omit-frame-pointer):
> > 
> >   leaf:
> >       /* long computation */
> >       nop
> >       ret
> >   parent:
> >       // (1)
> >       stp     x29, x30, [sp, -16]!
> >       mov     x29, sp
> >       bl      parent
> >       nop
> >       ldp     x29, x30, [sp], 16
> >       // (2)
> >       ret
> > 
> > If the program is interrupted at (1), (2), or any point in "leaf:", the
> > call graph will skip the callers of the current function. We can unwind
> > using the dwarf info and check if the return addr is the same as the LR
> > register, and inject the missing frame into the call graph.
> > 
> > Before this patch, the above example shows the following call-graph when
> > recording using "--call-graph fp" mode in ARM64:
> > 
> >   # Children      Self  Command   Shared Object     Symbol
> >   # ........  ........  ........  ................  ......................
> >   #
> >       99.86%    99.86%  program3  program3          [.] leaf
> >   	    |
> >   	    ---_start
> >   	       __libc_start_main
> >   	       main
> >   	       leaf
> > 
> > As can be seen, the "parent" function is missing. This is specially
> > problematic in "leaf" because for leaf functions the compiler may always
> > omit pushing the return addr into the stack. After this patch, it shows
> > the correct graph:
> > 
> >   # Children      Self  Command   Shared Object     Symbol
> >   # ........  ........  ........  ................  ......................
> >   #
> >       99.86%    99.86%  program3  program3          [.] leaf
> >   	    |
> >   	    ---_start
> >   	       __libc_start_main
> >   	       main
> >   	       parent
> >   	       leaf
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/util/Build                         |  1 +
> >  .../util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h | 10 +++
> >  tools/perf/util/machine.c                     | 19 ++++--
> >  tools/perf/util/machine.h                     |  1 +
> >  5 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> >  create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/Build b/tools/perf/util/Build
> > index 2e5bfbb69960..03d4c647bd86 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/Build
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/Build
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > +perf-y += arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.o
> >  perf-y += annotate.o
> >  perf-y += block-info.o
> >  perf-y += block-range.o
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..4f5ecf51ed38
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +#include "arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h"
> > +#include "callchain.h"
> > +#include "event.h"
> > +#include "perf_regs.h" // SMPL_REG_MASK
> > +#include "unwind.h"
> > +
> > +#define perf_event_arm_regs perf_event_arm64_regs
> > +#include "../arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/perf_regs.h"
> > +#undef perf_event_arm_regs
> > +
> > +struct entries {
> > +	u64 stack[2];
> > +	size_t length;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static bool get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(struct perf_sample *sample)
> > +{
> > +	return callchain_param.record_mode == CALLCHAIN_FP && sample->user_regs.regs
> > +		&& sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_LR);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int add_entry(struct unwind_entry *entry, void *arg)
> > +{
> > +	struct entries *entries = arg;
> > +
> > +	entries->stack[entries->length++] = entry->ip;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread, int usr_idx)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	struct entries entries = {};
> > +	struct regs_dump old_regs = sample->user_regs;
> > +
> > +	if (!get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(sample))
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If PC and SP are not recorded, get the value of PC from the stack
> > +	 * and set its mask. SP is not used when doing the unwinding but it
> > +	 * still needs to be set to prevent failures.
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	if (!(sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_PC))) {
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_mask |= SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_PC);
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_PC] = sample->callchain->ips[usr_idx+1];
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!(sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_SP))) {
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_mask |= SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_SP);
> > +		sample->user_regs.cache_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP] = 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = unwind__get_entries(add_entry, &entries, thread, sample, 2);
> > +	sample->user_regs = old_regs;
> > +
> > +	if (ret || entries.length != 2)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	return callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLER ? entries.stack[0] : entries.stack[1];
> > +}
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..32af9ce94398
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +#ifndef __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H
> > +#define __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H
> > +
> > +#include "event.h"
> > +#include "thread.h"
> > +
> > +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread, int user_idx);
> > +
> > +#endif /* __PERF_ARM_FRAME_POINTER_UNWIND_SUPPORT_H */
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > index 3eddad009f78..a00fd6796b35 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> >  #include "bpf-event.h"
> >  #include <internal/lib.h> // page_size
> >  #include "cgroup.h"
> > +#include "arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.h"
> >  
> >  #include <linux/ctype.h>
> >  #include <symbol/kallsyms.h>
> > @@ -2710,10 +2711,13 @@ static int find_prev_cpumode(struct ip_callchain *chain, struct thread *thread,
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static u64 get_leaf_frame_caller(struct perf_sample *sample __maybe_unused,
> > -		struct thread *thread __maybe_unused, int usr_idx __maybe_unused)
> > +static u64 get_leaf_frame_caller(struct perf_sample *sample,
> > +		struct thread *thread, int usr_idx)
> >  {
> > -	return 0;
> > +	if (machine__normalize_is(thread->maps->machine, "arm64"))
> > +		return get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(sample, thread, usr_idx);
> > +	else
> > +		return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static int thread__resolve_callchain_sample(struct thread *thread,
> > @@ -3114,14 +3118,19 @@ int machine__set_current_tid(struct machine *machine, int cpu, pid_t pid,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * Compares the raw arch string. N.B. see instead perf_env__arch() if a
> > - * normalized arch is needed.
> > + * Compares the raw arch string. N.B. see instead perf_env__arch() or
> > + * machine__normalize_is() if a normalized arch is needed.
> >   */
> >  bool machine__is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch)
> >  {
> >  	return machine && !strcmp(perf_env__raw_arch(machine->env), arch);
> >  }
> >  
> > +bool machine__normalize_is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch)
> > +{
> > +	return machine && !strcmp(perf_env__arch(machine->env), arch);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> I think this function name would be clearer as something like "machine__normalized_is" or
> "machine__normalized_arch_is". The tense is slightly off because it's a test rather than a
> verb.

Agreed, its a question, not a command.

- Arnaldo
 
> With that change, for the whole set:
> 
> Reviewed-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
> 
> 
> >  int machine__nr_cpus_avail(struct machine *machine)
> >  {
> >  	return machine ? perf_env__nr_cpus_avail(machine->env) : 0;
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.h b/tools/perf/util/machine.h
> > index a143087eeb47..665535153411 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.h
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.h
> > @@ -208,6 +208,7 @@ static inline bool machine__is_host(struct machine *machine)
> >  }
> >  
> >  bool machine__is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch);
> > +bool machine__normalize_is(struct machine *machine, const char *arch);
> >  int machine__nr_cpus_avail(struct machine *machine);
> >  
> >  struct thread *__machine__findnew_thread(struct machine *machine, pid_t pid, pid_t tid);
> > 

-- 

- Arnaldo

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-18 11:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-17 15:45 [PATCH v5 0/6] perf tools/arm64: Fix missing leaf-function callers in ARM64 when using "--call-graph=fp" German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` [PATCH v5 1/6] perf tools: record ARM64 LR register automatically German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45   ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` [PATCH v5 2/6] perf tools: add a mechanism to inject stack frames German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45   ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] perf tools: Refactor script__setup_sample_type() German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45   ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` [PATCH v5 4/6] perf tools: enable dwarf_callchain_users on arm64 German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45   ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` [PATCH v5 5/6] perf tools: Refactor SMPL_REG macro in perf_regs.h German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45   ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45 ` [PATCH v5 6/6] perf arm64: inject missing frames if perf-record used "--call-graph=fp" German Gomez
2021-12-17 15:45   ` German Gomez
2021-12-17 16:01   ` James Clark
2021-12-17 16:01     ` James Clark
2021-12-18 11:35     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [this message]
2021-12-18 11:35       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2021-12-21  9:32   ` Jiri Olsa
2021-12-21  9:32     ` Jiri Olsa
2021-12-21 14:17     ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2021-12-21 14:17       ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2021-12-21 15:06       ` Jiri Olsa
2021-12-21 15:06         ` Jiri Olsa
2022-01-10 10:48     ` German Gomez
2022-01-10 10:48       ` German Gomez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Yb3HaQrm1RuI52/j@kernel.org \
    --to=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alexandre.truong@arm.com \
    --cc=german.gomez@arm.com \
    --cc=james.clark@arm.com \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=leo.yan@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.