From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
To: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Yao Jin <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:59:39 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170619185939.GA2170@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1916323.ygRLzu1ryd@agathebauer>
Em Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 01:13:11PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 10:04:02 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:56:57 +0200, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Not sure whether it needs be fixed or not. If we fix it, srcline and
> > > address would not match so it can give its own confusion to users.
> > > Ideally it should display an addressof the instruction before the
> > > address IMHO.
> >
> > One can figure million ways how it can behave and each one has its pros and
> > cons. I was just describing the current behavior of GDB and LLDB which
> > people are used to already.
>
> Personally, I agree with Jan that we should mimick existing tool's behavior. I
> just fear that it's not trivial to do it with the current code base...
But we agree it is a worthwhile change (have backtraces in perf match
what gdb, etc show), right?
If you can, please try to do this, your attempt will help us understand
more the extent of the changes needed and perhaps someonw can come up
with simplifications...
- Arnaldo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-19 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-15 15:04 [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames Milian Wolff
2017-05-15 15:13 ` Milian Wolff
2017-05-15 15:13 ` Milian Wolff
2017-05-16 1:57 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-05-16 9:00 ` Milian Wolff
2017-06-16 6:14 ` Jan Kratochvil
2017-06-16 11:51 ` Milian Wolff
2017-06-16 11:57 ` Jan Kratochvil
2017-06-16 19:54 ` Milian Wolff
2017-06-17 7:56 ` Namhyung Kim
2017-06-17 8:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
2017-06-17 11:13 ` Milian Wolff
2017-06-19 18:59 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [this message]
2017-07-04 7:59 ` Milian Wolff
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=20170619185939.GA2170@redhat.com \
--to=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=milian.wolff@kdab.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=yao.jin@linux.intel.com \
/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.