[PATCH 0/3] perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

[PATCH 0/3] perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part
of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158.

Also includes the test suite for dwarf unwinding, by adding the
arch specific test code and the perf_regs_load function.

This series depends on the following kernel patches series:
- AARCH64 unwinding support [1],
- ARM libdw integration [2],
and on the changes from the branch for:
- libdw AARCH64 unwinding support [3].

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg304483.html
[2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg312423.html
[3] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/elfutils.git/log/?h=mjw/aarch64-unwind


Jean Pihet (3):
  perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64
  perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM64
  perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

 tools/perf/Makefile.perf                   |  2 +-
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile             |  7 ++++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h  |  5 +++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S    | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c  | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c            |  3 +-
 tools/perf/tests/tests.h                   |  3 +-
 8 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c

---

- Rebased on latest acme/perf/core git tree,
- Tested on the ARMv8 Foundation emulator.

-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 0/3] perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part
of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158.

Also includes the test suite for dwarf unwinding, by adding the
arch specific test code and the perf_regs_load function.

This series depends on the following kernel patches series:
- AARCH64 unwinding support [1],
- ARM libdw integration [2],
and on the changes from the branch for:
- libdw AARCH64 unwinding support [3].

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg304483.html
[2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg312423.html
[3] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/elfutils.git/log/?h=mjw/aarch64-unwind


Jean Pihet (3):
  perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64
  perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM64
  perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

 tools/perf/Makefile.perf                   |  2 +-
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile             |  7 ++++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h  |  5 +++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S    | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c  | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c            |  3 +-
 tools/perf/tests/tests.h                   |  3 +-
 8 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c

---

- Rebased on latest acme/perf/core git tree,
- Tested on the ARMv8 Foundation emulator.

-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.

It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
 {
 	switch (id) {
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92ab968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
+
+/*
+ * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+ *
+ * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
+ * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
+ * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
+ *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
+ * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
+ * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
+ *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
+ *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
+ */
+
+.text
+.type perf_regs_load,%function
+ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
+	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
+	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
+	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
+	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
+	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
+	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
+	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
+	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
+	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
+	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
+	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
+	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
+	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
+	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
+	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
+	mov x1,  sp
+	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
+	str x30, [x0]		// store pc as lr in order to skip the call
+				//  to this function
+	ret
+ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.

It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
 {
 	switch (id) {
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92ab968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
+
+/*
+ * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+ *
+ * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
+ * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
+ * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
+ *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
+ * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
+ * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
+ *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
+ *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
+ */
+
+.text
+.type perf_regs_load,%function
+ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
+	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
+	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
+	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
+	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
+	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
+	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
+	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
+	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
+	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
+	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
+	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
+	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
+	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
+	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
+	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
+	mov x1,  sp
+	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
+	str x30, [x0]		// store pc as lr in order to skip the call
+				//  to this function
+	ret
+ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Adding dwarf unwind test, that setups live machine data over
the perf test thread and does the remote unwind.

Need to use -fno-optimize-sibling-calls for test compilation,
otherwise 'krava_*' function calls are optimized into jumps
and ommited from the stack unwind.

Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
---
 tools/perf/Makefile.perf                   |  2 +-
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile             |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h  |  3 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c            |  3 +-
 tools/perf/tests/tests.h                   |  3 +-
 6 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c

diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
index f281c4f..f9c8808 100644
--- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
+++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/code-reading.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/sample-parsing.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/parse-no-sample-id-all.o
 ifndef NO_DWARF_UNWIND
-ifeq ($(ARCH),$(filter $(ARCH),x86 arm))
+ifeq ($(ARCH),$(filter $(ARCH),x86 arm arm64))
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/dwarf-unwind.o
 endif
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 9b8f87e..221f21d 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 1e052f1..e74df99 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+#define PERF_REGS_MAX	PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX
+#define PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI	PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_64
+
 void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
 
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0aa64f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+#include <string.h>
+#include "perf_regs.h"
+#include "thread.h"
+#include "map.h"
+#include "event.h"
+#include "tests/tests.h"
+
+#define STACK_SIZE 8192
+
+static int sample_ustack(struct perf_sample *sample,
+			 struct thread *thread, u64 *regs)
+{
+	struct stack_dump *stack = &sample->user_stack;
+	struct map *map;
+	unsigned long sp;
+	u64 stack_size, *buf;
+
+	buf = malloc(STACK_SIZE);
+	if (!buf) {
+		pr_debug("failed to allocate sample uregs data\n");
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP];
+
+	map = map_groups__find(&thread->mg, MAP__FUNCTION, (u64) sp);
+	if (!map) {
+		pr_debug("failed to get stack map\n");
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	stack_size = map->end - sp;
+	stack_size = stack_size > STACK_SIZE ? STACK_SIZE : stack_size;
+
+	memcpy(buf, (void *) sp, stack_size);
+	stack->data = (char *) buf;
+	stack->size = stack_size;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+int test__arch_unwind_sample(struct perf_sample *sample,
+			     struct thread *thread)
+{
+	struct regs_dump *regs = &sample->user_regs;
+	u64 *buf;
+
+	buf = malloc(sizeof(u64) * PERF_REGS_MAX);
+	if (!buf) {
+		pr_debug("failed to allocate sample uregs data\n");
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	perf_regs_load(buf);
+	regs->abi  = PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI;
+	regs->regs = buf;
+	regs->mask = PERF_REGS_MASK;
+
+	return sample_ustack(sample, thread, buf);
+}
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
index 167d527..d802215 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
@@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ static struct test {
 		.desc = "Test parsing with no sample_id_all bit set",
 		.func = test__parse_no_sample_id_all,
 	},
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || \
+    defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
 #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
 	{
 		.desc = "Test dwarf unwind",
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/tests.h b/tools/perf/tests/tests.h
index 0c89cfe..e7bfddb 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/tests.h
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/tests.h
@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ int test__keep_tracking(void);
 int test__parse_no_sample_id_all(void);
 int test__dwarf_unwind(void);
 
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || \
+    defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
 #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
 struct thread;
 struct perf_sample;
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Adding dwarf unwind test, that setups live machine data over
the perf test thread and does the remote unwind.

Need to use -fno-optimize-sibling-calls for test compilation,
otherwise 'krava_*' function calls are optimized into jumps
and ommited from the stack unwind.

Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
---
 tools/perf/Makefile.perf                   |  2 +-
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile             |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h  |  3 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c            |  3 +-
 tools/perf/tests/tests.h                   |  3 +-
 6 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c

diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
index f281c4f..f9c8808 100644
--- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
+++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/code-reading.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/sample-parsing.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/parse-no-sample-id-all.o
 ifndef NO_DWARF_UNWIND
-ifeq ($(ARCH),$(filter $(ARCH),x86 arm))
+ifeq ($(ARCH),$(filter $(ARCH),x86 arm arm64))
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/dwarf-unwind.o
 endif
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 9b8f87e..221f21d 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 1e052f1..e74df99 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,9 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+#define PERF_REGS_MAX	PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX
+#define PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI	PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_64
+
 void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
 
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0aa64f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+#include <string.h>
+#include "perf_regs.h"
+#include "thread.h"
+#include "map.h"
+#include "event.h"
+#include "tests/tests.h"
+
+#define STACK_SIZE 8192
+
+static int sample_ustack(struct perf_sample *sample,
+			 struct thread *thread, u64 *regs)
+{
+	struct stack_dump *stack = &sample->user_stack;
+	struct map *map;
+	unsigned long sp;
+	u64 stack_size, *buf;
+
+	buf = malloc(STACK_SIZE);
+	if (!buf) {
+		pr_debug("failed to allocate sample uregs data\n");
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP];
+
+	map = map_groups__find(&thread->mg, MAP__FUNCTION, (u64) sp);
+	if (!map) {
+		pr_debug("failed to get stack map\n");
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	stack_size = map->end - sp;
+	stack_size = stack_size > STACK_SIZE ? STACK_SIZE : stack_size;
+
+	memcpy(buf, (void *) sp, stack_size);
+	stack->data = (char *) buf;
+	stack->size = stack_size;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+int test__arch_unwind_sample(struct perf_sample *sample,
+			     struct thread *thread)
+{
+	struct regs_dump *regs = &sample->user_regs;
+	u64 *buf;
+
+	buf = malloc(sizeof(u64) * PERF_REGS_MAX);
+	if (!buf) {
+		pr_debug("failed to allocate sample uregs data\n");
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	perf_regs_load(buf);
+	regs->abi  = PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI;
+	regs->regs = buf;
+	regs->mask = PERF_REGS_MASK;
+
+	return sample_ustack(sample, thread, buf);
+}
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
index 167d527..d802215 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
@@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ static struct test {
 		.desc = "Test parsing with no sample_id_all bit set",
 		.func = test__parse_no_sample_id_all,
 	},
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || \
+    defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
 #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
 	{
 		.desc = "Test dwarf unwind",
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/tests.h b/tools/perf/tests/tests.h
index 0c89cfe..e7bfddb 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/tests.h
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/tests.h
@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ int test__keep_tracking(void);
 int test__parse_no_sample_id_all(void);
 int test__dwarf_unwind(void);
 
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || \
+    defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
 #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
 struct thread;
 struct perf_sample;
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 3/3] perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part
of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158.

Note: the libdw code needs some support for dwarf unwinding
on ARM64, this code is submitted seperately on the elfutils
ML.

The new code is contained in unwin-libdw.c object, and
implements unwind__get_entries unwind interface function.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  5 +++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 221f21d..09d6215 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,6 +4,11 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+endif
+ifndef NO_LIBDW_DWARF_UNWIND
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libdw.o
+endif
+ifndef NO_DWARF_UNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d24958
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+#include <elfutils/libdwfl.h>
+#include "../../util/unwind-libdw.h"
+#include "../../util/perf_regs.h"
+
+bool libdw__arch_set_initial_registers(Dwfl_Thread *thread, void *arg)
+{
+	struct unwind_info *ui = arg;
+	struct regs_dump *user_regs = &ui->sample->user_regs;
+	Dwarf_Word dwarf_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX];
+
+#define REG(r) ({						\
+	Dwarf_Word val = 0;					\
+	perf_reg_value(&val, user_regs, PERF_REG_ARM64_##r);	\
+	val;							\
+})
+
+	dwarf_regs[0]  = REG(X0);
+	dwarf_regs[1]  = REG(X1);
+	dwarf_regs[2]  = REG(X2);
+	dwarf_regs[3]  = REG(X3);
+	dwarf_regs[4]  = REG(X4);
+	dwarf_regs[5]  = REG(X5);
+	dwarf_regs[6]  = REG(X6);
+	dwarf_regs[7]  = REG(X7);
+	dwarf_regs[8]  = REG(X8);
+	dwarf_regs[9]  = REG(X9);
+	dwarf_regs[10] = REG(X10);
+	dwarf_regs[11] = REG(X11);
+	dwarf_regs[12] = REG(X12);
+	dwarf_regs[13] = REG(X13);
+	dwarf_regs[14] = REG(X14);
+	dwarf_regs[15] = REG(X15);
+	dwarf_regs[16] = REG(X16);
+	dwarf_regs[17] = REG(X17);
+	dwarf_regs[18] = REG(X18);
+	dwarf_regs[19] = REG(X19);
+	dwarf_regs[20] = REG(X20);
+	dwarf_regs[21] = REG(X21);
+	dwarf_regs[22] = REG(X22);
+	dwarf_regs[23] = REG(X23);
+	dwarf_regs[24] = REG(X24);
+	dwarf_regs[25] = REG(X25);
+	dwarf_regs[26] = REG(X26);
+	dwarf_regs[27] = REG(X27);
+	dwarf_regs[28] = REG(X28);
+	dwarf_regs[29] = REG(X29);
+	dwarf_regs[30] = REG(LR);
+	dwarf_regs[31] = REG(SP);
+	dwarf_regs[32] = REG(PC);
+
+	return dwfl_thread_state_registers(thread, 0, PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX,
+					   dwarf_regs);
+}
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 3/3] perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part
of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158.

Note: the libdw code needs some support for dwarf unwinding
on ARM64, this code is submitted seperately on the elfutils
ML.

The new code is contained in unwin-libdw.c object, and
implements unwind__get_entries unwind interface function.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  5 +++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 221f21d..09d6215 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,6 +4,11 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+endif
+ifndef NO_LIBDW_DWARF_UNWIND
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libdw.o
+endif
+ifndef NO_DWARF_UNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d24958
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+#include <elfutils/libdwfl.h>
+#include "../../util/unwind-libdw.h"
+#include "../../util/perf_regs.h"
+
+bool libdw__arch_set_initial_registers(Dwfl_Thread *thread, void *arg)
+{
+	struct unwind_info *ui = arg;
+	struct regs_dump *user_regs = &ui->sample->user_regs;
+	Dwarf_Word dwarf_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX];
+
+#define REG(r) ({						\
+	Dwarf_Word val = 0;					\
+	perf_reg_value(&val, user_regs, PERF_REG_ARM64_##r);	\
+	val;							\
+})
+
+	dwarf_regs[0]  = REG(X0);
+	dwarf_regs[1]  = REG(X1);
+	dwarf_regs[2]  = REG(X2);
+	dwarf_regs[3]  = REG(X3);
+	dwarf_regs[4]  = REG(X4);
+	dwarf_regs[5]  = REG(X5);
+	dwarf_regs[6]  = REG(X6);
+	dwarf_regs[7]  = REG(X7);
+	dwarf_regs[8]  = REG(X8);
+	dwarf_regs[9]  = REG(X9);
+	dwarf_regs[10] = REG(X10);
+	dwarf_regs[11] = REG(X11);
+	dwarf_regs[12] = REG(X12);
+	dwarf_regs[13] = REG(X13);
+	dwarf_regs[14] = REG(X14);
+	dwarf_regs[15] = REG(X15);
+	dwarf_regs[16] = REG(X16);
+	dwarf_regs[17] = REG(X17);
+	dwarf_regs[18] = REG(X18);
+	dwarf_regs[19] = REG(X19);
+	dwarf_regs[20] = REG(X20);
+	dwarf_regs[21] = REG(X21);
+	dwarf_regs[22] = REG(X22);
+	dwarf_regs[23] = REG(X23);
+	dwarf_regs[24] = REG(X24);
+	dwarf_regs[25] = REG(X25);
+	dwarf_regs[26] = REG(X26);
+	dwarf_regs[27] = REG(X27);
+	dwarf_regs[28] = REG(X28);
+	dwarf_regs[29] = REG(X29);
+	dwarf_regs[30] = REG(LR);
+	dwarf_regs[31] = REG(SP);
+	dwarf_regs[32] = REG(PC);
+
+	return dwfl_thread_state_registers(thread, 0, PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX,
+					   dwarf_regs);
+}
-- 
1.7.11.7

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Mark Rutland]

Hi Jean,

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
> 
> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>  endif
>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>  endif
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>  #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>  #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>  
> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> +
>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>  {
>  	switch (id) {
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..92ab968
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> + *
> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,

Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.

If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
and the current LR value.

If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.

> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
> + */
> +
> +.text
> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
> +	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
> +	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
> +	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
> +	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
> +	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
> +	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
> +	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
> +	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
> +	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
> +	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
> +	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
> +	mov x1,  sp
> +	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
> +	str x30, [x0]		// store pc as lr in order to skip the call
> +				//  to this function

It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
seems to be doing.

Cheers,
Mark.

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Mark Rutland]

Hi Jean,

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
> 
> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>  endif
>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>  endif
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>  #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>  #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>  
> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> +
>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>  {
>  	switch (id) {
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..92ab968
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> + *
> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,

Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.

If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
and the current LR value.

If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.

> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
> + */
> +
> +.text
> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
> +	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
> +	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
> +	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
> +	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
> +	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
> +	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
> +	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
> +	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
> +	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
> +	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
> +	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
> +	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
> +	mov x1,  sp
> +	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
> +	str x30, [x0]		// store pc as lr in order to skip the call
> +				//  to this function

It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
seems to be doing.

Cheers,
Mark.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Mark,

On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>>
>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>>  endif
>>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>>  endif
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>>
>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> +
>>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>>  {
>>       switch (id) {
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..92ab968
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> + *
>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>
> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.

> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
> and the current LR value.
>
> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
the call to a function.

Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?

>
>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>> + */
>> +
>> +.text
>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>> +     mov x1,  sp
>> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>> +                             //  to this function
>
> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
> seems to be doing.
Ok the last comment can be updated.

Thanks!
Jean

>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Mark,

On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>>
>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>>  endif
>>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>>  endif
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>>
>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> +
>>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>>  {
>>       switch (id) {
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..92ab968
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> + *
>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>
> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.

> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
> and the current LR value.
>
> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
the call to a function.

Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?

>
>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>> + */
>> +
>> +.text
>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>> +     mov x1,  sp
>> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>> +                             //  to this function
>
> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
> seems to be doing.
Ok the last comment can be updated.

Thanks!
Jean

>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Mark,

ping on this series, see comment below.

On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>>>
>>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>>>  endif
>>>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>>>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>>>  endif
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>>>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>>>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>>>
>>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> +
>>>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>>>  {
>>>       switch (id) {
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..92ab968
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>>> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> + *
>>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>>> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>>
>> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
>> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
>> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
>
>> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
>> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
>> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
>> and the current LR value.
>>
>> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
>> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
>> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
>> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
> the call to a function.
>
> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
What do you think?

Regards,
Jean

>
>>
>>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>>> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>>> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +.text
>>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>>> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>>> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>>> +     mov x1,  sp
>>> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>>> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>>> +                             //  to this function
>>
>> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
>> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
>> seems to be doing.
> Ok the last comment can be updated.
>
> Thanks!
> Jean
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Mark,

ping on this series, see comment below.

On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>>>
>>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>>>  endif
>>>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>>>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>>>  endif
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>>>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>>>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>>>
>>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> +
>>>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>>>  {
>>>       switch (id) {
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..92ab968
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>>> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> + *
>>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>>> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>>
>> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
>> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
>> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
>
>> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
>> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
>> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
>> and the current LR value.
>>
>> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
>> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
>> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
>> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
> the call to a function.
>
> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
What do you think?

Regards,
Jean

>
>>
>>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>>> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>>> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +.text
>>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>>> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>>> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>>> +     mov x1,  sp
>>> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>>> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>>> +                             //  to this function
>>
>> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
>> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
>> seems to be doing.
> Ok the last comment can be updated.
>
> Thanks!
> Jean
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Mark, Will,

Ping on this series. Can you please check? I

Regards,
Jean


On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>>>
>>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>>>  endif
>>>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>>>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>>>  endif
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>>>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>>>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>>>
>>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> +
>>>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>>>  {
>>>       switch (id) {
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..92ab968
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>>> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> + *
>>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>>> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>>
>> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
>> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
>> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
>
>> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
>> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
>> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
>> and the current LR value.
>>
>> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
>> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
>> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
>> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
> the call to a function.
>
> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
>
>>
>>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>>> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>>> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +.text
>>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>>> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>>> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>>> +     mov x1,  sp
>>> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>>> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>>> +                             //  to this function
>>
>> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
>> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
>> seems to be doing.
> Ok the last comment can be updated.
>
> Thanks!
> Jean
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Mark, Will,

Ping on this series. Can you please check? I

Regards,
Jean


On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>>> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>>> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>>>
>>> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>>> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>>> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>>>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>>> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>>>  endif
>>>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>>>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>>>  endif
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>>>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>>>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>>>
>>> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> +
>>>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>>>  {
>>>       switch (id) {
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..92ab968
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>>> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>>> + *
>>> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>>> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>>> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>>> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>>
>> Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
>> link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
>> doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
>
>> If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
>> PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
>> then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
>> and the current LR value.
>>
>> If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
>> doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
>> probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
>> what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
> the call to a function.
>
> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
>
>>
>>> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>>> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>>> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>>> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +.text
>>> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>>> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>>> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>>> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>>> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>>> +     mov x1,  sp
>>> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>>> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>>> +                             //  to this function
>>
>> It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
>> me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
>> seems to be doing.
> Ok the last comment can be updated.
>
> Thanks!
> Jean
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Mark, Will,

Hi Jean,

> Ping on this series. Can you please check? I

Do you have a pointer to the latest version of your code please? The email
backlog I have seems to end with MarkR saying he would take a look.

Will

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Mark, Will,

Hi Jean,

> Ping on this series. Can you please check? I

Do you have a pointer to the latest version of your code please? The email
backlog I have seems to end with MarkR saying he would take a look.

Will

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Mark Rutland]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:37:44AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> > Hi Mark, Will,
> 
> Hi Jean,
> 
> > Ping on this series. Can you please check? I
> 
> Do you have a pointer to the latest version of your code please? The email
> backlog I have seems to end with MarkR saying he would take a look.

The last posting I saw was [1-6]. The lack of reply is my fault, as I
lost track of the thread.

Cheers,
Mark.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241470.html
[2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241467.html
[3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/242396.html
[4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/242998.html
[5] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241466.html
[6] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241468.html

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Mark Rutland]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:37:44AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> > Hi Mark, Will,
> 
> Hi Jean,
> 
> > Ping on this series. Can you please check? I
> 
> Do you have a pointer to the latest version of your code please? The email
> backlog I have seems to end with MarkR saying he would take a look.

The last posting I saw was [1-6]. The lack of reply is my fault, as I
lost track of the thread.

Cheers,
Mark.

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241470.html
[2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241467.html
[3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/242396.html
[4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/242998.html
[5] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241466.html
[6] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241468.html

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Mark Rutland]

Hi Jean,

Apologies for the delay on this.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:23:26PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> >> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
> >> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
> >>
> >> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
> >> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
> >> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
> >> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
> >> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
> >> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> >> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> >> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
> >>  endif
> >>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
> >>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> >> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
> >>  endif
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> >> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
> >>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
> >>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
> >>
> >> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> >> +
> >>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
> >>  {
> >>       switch (id) {
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..92ab968
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> >> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> >> + *
> >> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
> >> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
> >> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
> >> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
> >
> > Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
> > link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
> > doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.

While I don't think we can rely on the compiler using a bl to call the
function it shouldn't matter here if we only care about the LR value
being an address within the caller, as it doesn't look amenable to tail
call optimization.

> > If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
> > PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
> > then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
> > and the current LR value.
> >
> > If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
> > doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
> > probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
> > what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
> the call to a function.
> 
> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?

If we just need an (arbitrary) address within the caller, a comment
update should be fine.

> >> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
> >> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
> >> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
> >> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +.text
> >> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
> >> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
> >> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
> >> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
> >> +     mov x1,  sp
> >> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
> >> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
> >> +                             //  to this function
> >
> > It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
> > me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
> > seems to be doing.
> Ok the last comment can be updated.

Ok, cheers.

With those changes I think this looks fine.

Thanks,
Mark.

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Mark Rutland]

Hi Jean,

Apologies for the delay on this.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:23:26PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
> >> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
> >> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
> >>
> >> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
> >> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
> >> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
> >> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
> >> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
> >> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> >> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> >> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
> >>  endif
> >>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
> >>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> >> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
> >>  endif
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> >> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
> >>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
> >>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
> >>
> >> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> >> +
> >>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
> >>  {
> >>       switch (id) {
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..92ab968
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> >> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> >> + *
> >> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
> >> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
> >> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
> >> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
> >
> > Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
> > link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
> > doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.

While I don't think we can rely on the compiler using a bl to call the
function it shouldn't matter here if we only care about the LR value
being an address within the caller, as it doesn't look amenable to tail
call optimization.

> > If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
> > PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
> > then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
> > and the current LR value.
> >
> > If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
> > doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
> > probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
> > what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
> the call to a function.
> 
> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?

If we just need an (arbitrary) address within the caller, a comment
update should be fine.

> >> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
> >> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
> >> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
> >> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +.text
> >> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
> >> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
> >> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
> >> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
> >> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
> >> +     mov x1,  sp
> >> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
> >> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
> >> +                             //  to this function
> >
> > It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
> > me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
> > seems to be doing.
> Ok the last comment can be updated.

Ok, cheers.

With those changes I think this looks fine.

Thanks,
Mark.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

On 22 April 2014 15:42, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Apologies for the delay on this.
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:23:26PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Jean,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> >> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>> >> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>> >>
>> >> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>> >> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>> >> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>> >> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>> >> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>> >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>> >> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>> >>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> >> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> >> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>> >>  endif
>> >>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>> >>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>> >> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>> >>  endif
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> >> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> >> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>> >>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>> >>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>> >>
>> >> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> >> +
>> >>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>> >>  {
>> >>       switch (id) {
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 0000000..92ab968
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>> >> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>> >> +
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> >> + *
>> >> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>> >> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>> >> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>> >> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>> >
>> > Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
>> > link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
>> > doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
>> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
>
> While I don't think we can rely on the compiler using a bl to call the
> function it shouldn't matter here if we only care about the LR value
> being an address within the caller, as it doesn't look amenable to tail
> call optimization.
>
>> > If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
>> > PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
>> > then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
>> > and the current LR value.
>> >
>> > If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
>> > doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
>> > probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
>> > what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
>> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
>> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
>> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
>> the call to a function.
>>
>> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
>
> If we just need an (arbitrary) address within the caller, a comment
> update should be fine.
Yes that is the idea;

>
>> >> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>> >> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>> >> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>> >> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>> >> + */
>> >> +
>> >> +.text
>> >> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>> >> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>> >> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>> >> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>> >> +     mov x1,  sp
>> >> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>> >> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>> >> +                             //  to this function
>> >
>> > It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
>> > me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
>> > seems to be doing.
>> Ok the last comment can be updated.
>
> Ok, cheers.
>
> With those changes I think this looks fine.
Ok let me send a refreshed version in a bit. If the wording is Ok I
will refresh the ARM patches for the same topic and re-submit them.

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

Thanks,
Jean

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

On 22 April 2014 15:42, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Apologies for the delay on this.
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:23:26PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Jean,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> >> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
>> >> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>> >>
>> >> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
>> >> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
>> >> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
>> >> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
>> >> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
>> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>> >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
>> >> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>> >>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>> >>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> >> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
>> >> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>> >>  endif
>> >>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>> >>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>> >> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>> >>  endif
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> >> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
>> >> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>> >>  #define PERF_REG_IP  PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>> >>  #define PERF_REG_SP  PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>> >>
>> >> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> >> +
>> >>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>> >>  {
>> >>       switch (id) {
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> >> new file mode 100644
>> >> index 0000000..92ab968
>> >> --- /dev/null
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
>> >> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
>> >> +
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
>> >> + *
>> >> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
>> >> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
>> >> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
>> >> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
>> >
>> > Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with
>> > link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are
>> > doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
>> The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
>
> While I don't think we can rely on the compiler using a bl to call the
> function it shouldn't matter here if we only care about the LR value
> being an address within the caller, as it doesn't look amenable to tail
> call optimization.
>
>> > If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the
>> > PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not
>> > then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time
>> > and the current LR value.
>> >
>> > If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which
>> > doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's
>> > probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document
>> > what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
>> The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code
>> resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf
>> information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of
>> the call to a function.
>>
>> Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
>
> If we just need an (arbitrary) address within the caller, a comment
> update should be fine.
Yes that is the idea;

>
>> >> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
>> >> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
>> >> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
>> >> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
>> >> + */
>> >> +
>> >> +.text
>> >> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
>> >> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
>> >> +     stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
>> >> +     stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
>> >> +     stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
>> >> +     mov x1,  sp
>> >> +     stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
>> >> +     str x30, [x0]           // store pc as lr in order to skip the call
>> >> +                             //  to this function
>> >
>> > It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To
>> > me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code
>> > seems to be doing.
>> Ok the last comment can be updated.
>
> Ok, cheers.
>
> With those changes I think this looks fine.
Ok let me send a refreshed version in a bit. If the wording is Ok I
will refresh the ARM patches for the same topic and re-submit them.

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

Thanks,
Jean

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.

It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
 {
 	switch (id) {
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40b8b99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
+
+/*
+ * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+ *
+ * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
+ * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them, e.g. an address
+ * within the caller:
+ * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
+ *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
+ * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
+ * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
+ *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
+ *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
+ */
+
+.text
+.type perf_regs_load,%function
+ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
+	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
+	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
+	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
+	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
+	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
+	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
+	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
+	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
+	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
+	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
+	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
+	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
+	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
+	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
+	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
+	mov x1,  sp
+	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
+	str x30, [x0]		// store lr as the PC in order to skip the call
+				//  to this function
+	ret
+ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.

It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
 {
 	switch (id) {
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40b8b99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
+
+/*
+ * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+ *
+ * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
+ * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them, e.g. an address
+ * within the caller:
+ * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
+ *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
+ * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
+ * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
+ *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
+ *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
+ */
+
+.text
+.type perf_regs_load,%function
+ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
+	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
+	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
+	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
+	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
+	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
+	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
+	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
+	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
+	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
+	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
+	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
+	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
+	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
+	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
+	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
+	mov x1,  sp
+	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
+	str x30, [x0]		// store lr as the PC in order to skip the call
+				//  to this function
+	ret
+ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
-- 
1.7.11.7

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi WIll, Mark,

Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?

Cheers,
Jean


On 28 April 2014 15:12, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org> wrote:
> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>
> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>  endif
>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>  endif
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>  #define PERF_REG_IP    PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>  #define PERF_REG_SP    PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>
> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> +
>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>  {
>         switch (id) {
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..40b8b99
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> + *
> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them, e.g. an address
> + * within the caller:
> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
> + */
> +
> +.text
> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
> +       stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
> +       stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
> +       stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
> +       stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
> +       stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
> +       stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
> +       stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
> +       stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
> +       stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
> +       stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
> +       stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
> +       mov x1,  sp
> +       stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
> +       str x30, [x0]           // store lr as the PC in order to skip the call
> +                               //  to this function
> +       ret
> +ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
> --
> 1.7.11.7
>

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi WIll, Mark,

Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?

Cheers,
Jean


On 28 April 2014 15:12, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org> wrote:
> Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
> to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
>
> It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
> buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
> expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
> Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
>  tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
> @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
>  endif
>  ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
>  LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
>  endif
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
>  #define PERF_REG_IP    PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
>  #define PERF_REG_SP    PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
>
> +void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> +
>  static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
>  {
>         switch (id) {
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..40b8b99
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
> + *
> + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
> + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them, e.g. an address
> + * within the caller:
> + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
> + *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
> + * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
> + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
> + *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
> + *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
> + */
> +
> +.text
> +.type perf_regs_load,%function
> +ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
> +       stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16 // store x0..x29
> +       stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
> +       stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
> +       stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
> +       stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
> +       stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
> +       stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
> +       stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
> +       stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
> +       stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
> +       stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
> +       stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
> +       mov x1,  sp
> +       stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16 // store lr and sp
> +       str x30, [x0]           // store lr as the PC in order to skip the call
> +                               //  to this function
> +       ret
> +ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
> --
> 1.7.11.7
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi WIll, Mark,
> 
> Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?

Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)

Will

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi WIll, Mark,
> 
> Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?

Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)

Will

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Will,

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Hi WIll, Mark,
>>
>> Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?
>
> Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)
Great! Is there some precaution to avoid a mis-reuse?

Other than that, which tree are the patches going to?

Cheers,
Jean

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

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Hi Will,

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Hi WIll, Mark,
>>
>> Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?
>
> Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)
Great! Is there some precaution to avoid a mis-reuse?

Other than that, which tree are the patches going to?

Cheers,
Jean

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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:07:11AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> >> Hi WIll, Mark,
> >>
> >> Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?
> >
> > Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)
> Great! Is there some precaution to avoid a mis-reuse?

Hopefully your comment will be enough.

> Other than that, which tree are the patches going to?

They're all under perf/tools/, so they should go via that tree.

Will

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:07:11AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Will,
> 
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> >> Hi WIll, Mark,
> >>
> >> Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?
> >
> > Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)
> Great! Is there some precaution to avoid a mis-reuse?

Hopefully your comment will be enough.

> Other than that, which tree are the patches going to?

They're all under perf/tools/, so they should go via that tree.

Will

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.

It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
 {
 	switch (id) {
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92ab968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
+
+/*
+ * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+ *
+ * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
+ * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
+ * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
+ *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
+ * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
+ * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
+ *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
+ *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
+ */
+
+.text
+.type perf_regs_load,%function
+ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
+	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
+	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
+	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
+	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
+	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
+	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
+	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
+	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
+	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
+	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
+	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
+	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
+	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
+	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
+	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
+	mov x1,  sp
+	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
+	str x30, [x0]		// store pc as lr in order to skip the call
+				//  to this function
+	ret
+ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
-- 
1.7.11.7

[PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64

[Jean Pihet]

Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going
to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.

It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump
buffer and populates it with current registers values, as
expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.

Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@linaro.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile            |  1 +
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h |  2 ++
 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S   | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S

diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o
 endif
 ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND
 LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o
+LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o
 endif
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
index 2359546..1e052f1 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #define PERF_REG_IP	PERF_REG_ARM64_PC
 #define PERF_REG_SP	PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
 
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+
 static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
 {
 	switch (id) {
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92ab968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+#include <linux/linkage.h>
+
+/*
+ * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
+ *
+ * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values,
+ * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them:
+ * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function
+ *   is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR,
+ * - the current SP (not touched by this function),
+ * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the
+ *   value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will
+ *   be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries.
+ */
+
+.text
+.type perf_regs_load,%function
+ENTRY(perf_regs_load)
+	stp x0,  x1,  [x0], #16	// store x0..x29
+	stp x2,  x3,  [x0], #16
+	stp x4,  x5,  [x0], #16
+	stp x6,  x7,  [x0], #16
+	stp x8,  x9,  [x0], #16
+	stp x10, x11, [x0], #16
+	stp x12, x13, [x0], #16
+	stp x14, x15, [x0], #16
+	stp x16, x17, [x0], #16
+	stp x18, x19, [x0], #16
+	stp x20, x21, [x0], #16
+	stp x22, x23, [x0], #16
+	stp x24, x25, [x0], #16
+	stp x26, x27, [x0], #16
+	stp x28, x29, [x0], #16
+	mov x1,  sp
+	stp x30, x1,  [x0], #16	// store lr and sp
+	str x30, [x0]		// store pc as lr in order to skip the call
+				//  to this function
+	ret
+ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
-- 
1.7.11.7