From: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org, Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] perf tools: enable dwarf_callchain_users on arm64 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:08:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <e7538b32-365e-7f0a-e77a-59d47febdd2e@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YboZ24EMD/4lVkyp@FVFF77S0Q05N> On 15/12/2021 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 03:11:36PM +0000, German Gomez wrote: >> [...] >> >> + >> + /* >> + * It's possible to determine the caller of leaf frames with omitted >> + * frame pointers on aarch64 using libunwind, so enable it. >> + */ > I reckon it's worth mentioning *why* we need to do this; how about: > > /* > * It's necessary to use libunwind to reliably determine the caller of > * a leaf function on aarch64, as otherwise we cannot know whether to > * start from the LR or FP. > * > * Always starting from the LR can result in duplicate or entirely > * erroneous entries. Always skipping the LR and starting from the FP > * can result in missing entries. > */ > > Other than that, this looks fine to me! > > Thanks, > Mark. Ack, I will update this Thanks, German > >> + if (callchain_param.record_mode == CALLCHAIN_FP && !strcmp(arch, "arm64")) >> + dwarf_callchain_users = true; >> } >> >> static bool chain_match(struct callchain_list *base_chain, >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/callchain.h b/tools/perf/util/callchain.h >> index 77fba053c677..d95615daed73 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/util/callchain.h >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/callchain.h >> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int callchain_branch_counts(struct callchain_root *root, >> u64 *branch_count, u64 *predicted_count, >> u64 *abort_count, u64 *cycles_count); >> >> -void callchain_param_setup(u64 sample_type); >> +void callchain_param_setup(u64 sample_type, const char *arch); >> >> bool callchain_cnode_matched(struct callchain_node *base_cnode, >> struct callchain_node *pair_cnode); >> -- >> 2.25.1 >>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org, Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>, Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] perf tools: enable dwarf_callchain_users on arm64 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:08:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <e7538b32-365e-7f0a-e77a-59d47febdd2e@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YboZ24EMD/4lVkyp@FVFF77S0Q05N> On 15/12/2021 16:37, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 03:11:36PM +0000, German Gomez wrote: >> [...] >> >> + >> + /* >> + * It's possible to determine the caller of leaf frames with omitted >> + * frame pointers on aarch64 using libunwind, so enable it. >> + */ > I reckon it's worth mentioning *why* we need to do this; how about: > > /* > * It's necessary to use libunwind to reliably determine the caller of > * a leaf function on aarch64, as otherwise we cannot know whether to > * start from the LR or FP. > * > * Always starting from the LR can result in duplicate or entirely > * erroneous entries. Always skipping the LR and starting from the FP > * can result in missing entries. > */ > > Other than that, this looks fine to me! > > Thanks, > Mark. Ack, I will update this Thanks, German > >> + if (callchain_param.record_mode == CALLCHAIN_FP && !strcmp(arch, "arm64")) >> + dwarf_callchain_users = true; >> } >> >> static bool chain_match(struct callchain_list *base_chain, >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/callchain.h b/tools/perf/util/callchain.h >> index 77fba053c677..d95615daed73 100644 >> --- a/tools/perf/util/callchain.h >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/callchain.h >> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int callchain_branch_counts(struct callchain_root *root, >> u64 *branch_count, u64 *predicted_count, >> u64 *abort_count, u64 *cycles_count); >> >> -void callchain_param_setup(u64 sample_type); >> +void callchain_param_setup(u64 sample_type, const char *arch); >> >> bool callchain_cnode_matched(struct callchain_node *base_cnode, >> struct callchain_node *pair_cnode); >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-17 12:09 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-12-15 15:11 [PATCH v4 0/6] Fix missing leaf-function callers when recording German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] perf tools: record ARM64 LR register automatically German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] perf tools: add a mechanism to inject stack frames German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] perf tools: Refactor script__setup_sample_type() German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] perf tools: enable dwarf_callchain_users on arm64 German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 16:37 ` Mark Rutland 2021-12-15 16:37 ` Mark Rutland 2021-12-17 12:08 ` German Gomez [this message] 2021-12-17 12:08 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] perf tools: Refactor SMPL_REG macro in perf_regs.h German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] perf tools: determine if LR is the return address German Gomez 2021-12-15 15:11 ` German Gomez 2021-12-15 16:33 ` Mark Rutland 2021-12-15 16:33 ` Mark Rutland 2021-12-17 11:57 ` German Gomez 2021-12-17 11:57 ` German Gomez
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=e7538b32-365e-7f0a-e77a-59d47febdd2e@arm.com \ --to=german.gomez@arm.com \ --cc=acme@kernel.org \ --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \ --cc=alexandre.truong@arm.com \ --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \ --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \ --cc=leo.yan@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \ --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.