From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753915AbeDTALI (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 20:11:08 -0400 Received: from lgeamrelo11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:41568 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753581AbeDTALH (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 20:11:07 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.227.17 X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:11:05 +0900 From: Namhyung Kim To: Kim Phillips Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Will Deacon , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Olsa , LKML , kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: set kernel end address properly Message-ID: <20180420001105.GB19067@sejong> References: <20180416092345.GA23274@krava> <20180416135125.GA23802@kernel.org> <20180416110730.1dd12801e43be66ea5d0cc48@arm.com> <20180416165800.GD3202@kernel.org> <20180416122407.0d90863b69fed80166384850@arm.com> <20180416174811.1aca9106364effe435f363c8@arm.com> <20180417022726.GA31947@sejong> <20180418193759.b63912fe5e5b8a9023ec80a8@arm.com> <20180419025424.GC13370@sejong> <20180419183313.db3e3a105191a7f30b7650b2@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180419183313.db3e3a105191a7f30b7650b2@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:33:13PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:54:24 +0900 > Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 07:37:59PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/sym-handling.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/sym-handling.c > > > index 0051b1ee8450..5c4a2e208bbc 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/sym-handling.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/sym-handling.c > > > @@ -20,3 +20,16 @@ bool elf__needs_adjust_symbols(GElf_Ehdr ehdr) > > > ehdr.e_type == ET_DYN; > > > } > > > #endif > > > + > > > +const char *arch__normalize_symbol_name(const char *name) > > > +{ > > > + /* > > > + * arm64 kernels compensating for a CPU erratum can put up a > > > + * module_emit_adrp_veneer in place of a module_emit_plt_entry > > > + */ > > > + if (name && strlen(name) >= 23 && > > > + !strncmp(name, "module_emit_adrp_veneer", 23)) > > > + return "module_emit_plt_entry"; > > > + > > > + return name; > > > +} > > > > I don't know it's always preferable or just for the test. It it's the > > latter it may be better to move it to the test code. > > AFACT, the veneer is a moniker and doesn't technically exist, and > shouldn't be being looked-up. Both chunks of this diff are needed to > pass perf test 1: this chunk above is because in > arch__normalize_symbol_name(), we squash the perf test 1's " > not in *kallsyms*" problem, and in the below chunk, we prevent it > coming up when the test code iterates over the *vmlinux* symbols. I.e. > we need to prevent the veneer from coming up in both kallsyms *and* > vmlinux. > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/vmlinux-kallsyms.c b/tools/perf/tests/vmlinux-kallsyms.c > > > index 1e5adb65632a..07064e76947d 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/tests/vmlinux-kallsyms.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/vmlinux-kallsyms.c > > > @@ -163,6 +163,29 @@ int test__vmlinux_matches_kallsyms(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int subtest > > > > > > continue; > > > } > > > + } else if (pair) { > > > + s64 skew = mem_start - UM(pair->start); > > > + struct map *kmap = map_groups__find(&kallsyms.kmaps, type, mem_start); > > > + struct map *vmap = map_groups__find(&vmlinux.kmaps, type, mem_start); > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * arm64 kernels compensating for a CPU erratum can put up a > > > + * module_emit_adrp_veneer in place of a module_emit_plt_entry > > > + */ > > > + if (llabs(skew) < page_size) > > > > It seems that we needs to check it's the ARM64 at least. If it's a > > OK. > > > rare case we might need to add more paranoid checks. > > It's certainly rare: Adding the authors of the veneer to cc for > comments: > > Will, Ard, how probable are veneer-style symbols such as the > one introduced in commit a257e0257 "arm64/kernel: don't ban ADRP to > work around Cortex-A53 erratum #843419" to happen again in the future? > > I would have thought WARNing on within-a-pagesize would be OK, > Namhyung. Are you suggesting checking instead for a hardcoded veneer > symbol string? Anything to prevent false-negatives (possibly on other archs). Thanks, Namhyung > > Thanks, > > Kim > > > > + { > > > + pr_debug("NO ERR FOR SKEW %ld: %#" PRIx64 ": diff start addr v: %s k: %#" PRIx64 " %s\n", > > > + skew, mem_start, sym->name, UM(pair->start), pair->name); > > > + continue; > > > + } > > > + > > > + pr_debug("ERR : %#" PRIx64 ": diff start addr v: %s k: %#" PRIx64 " %s\n", > > > + mem_start, sym->name, UM(pair->start), pair->name); > > > + > > > + if (kmap && vmap) { > > > + pr_debug(" : map v: %s k: %s\n", > > > + vmap->dso->short_name, kmap->dso->short_name); > > > + } > > > } else > > > pr_debug("ERR : %#" PRIx64 ": %s not on kallsyms\n", > > > mem_start, sym->name);