From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045F5C282C0 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 21:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52ED21855 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 21:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="eEkdUoNN" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726220AbfAWVvT (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:51:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f196.google.com ([209.85.214.196]:36565 "EHLO mail-pl1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726035AbfAWVvS (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:51:18 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f196.google.com with SMTP id g9so1833610plo.3 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:51:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Un+ddWOkrcLIgcdYaVmErVN+SdzigN0j9GGeHRptMoo=; b=eEkdUoNNh9LMxCmSkRnBatUg64bUk2CRLGuYq4jPvAFodhiYnkcuCyuBi3UwyPTUE3 YQAVq8xUHy2zT0eK2l0l2wDqgIxd1lGXBImoYakKSCs7WXYnCbd0LijXqy5A1SvFnKC1 nfrQi5eiB3sf31qcEgIw18lTlTEyqlXxDPAq0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Un+ddWOkrcLIgcdYaVmErVN+SdzigN0j9GGeHRptMoo=; b=IA7GnjZREswoCH80B2+jeoBkUKGBoOALV+2n+m+OtXX2Jt9F/D4bpAfeSYJaNwOVn/ ZtebgPNn5XbpTmBVkNvT8/+vi/9Hlnvo55LfjkIg6MvVJ5KsrIOzKXouy1KXsi/9DKjT pgJ3e0Dv2FJqa4FGYyuzQeaebLotXws3q9L3F8ehkC8n9bfCaqZhNR6jVSbzunU1gi7D aoaO3g9Frs+eE5yROqTOOCVop4aPXQX1SwZn0YYSzKqHNZtaxVN+vGbRCavMsrhdIbF5 ZSYzM4jZiDYd8nLuhfkXIN+lpUmx6T/SprbHaHPD1UtMedQ9mSbPbnB+V4eO7wKXR07p xnLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeDoRDBHYjg5o04jXn+5djvL9qRkV+ih2c51+cx0ic70rzTNvaM FnqGA8QkJqqls1aD3dYQaMHUbQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7llw7Cbe+fDZE2zaKxL2R0lB+Y1xOkgy/EbdJS2qcmASmFFWyDk+Z97ikucEQRIB77Uxe6bQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ba89:: with SMTP id k9mr4022026pls.189.1548280277555; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps15 (S0106002369de4dac.cg.shawcable.net. [68.147.8.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4sm41423684pgn.54.2019.01.23.13.51.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:51:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:51:14 -0700 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Leo Yan Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Suzuki K Poulose , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Mike Leach , Robert Walker , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Coresight ML Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 8/8] perf cs-etm: Set sample flags for exception return packet Message-ID: <20190123215114.GH620@xps15> References: <20190119014347.27441-1-leo.yan@linaro.org> <20190119014347.27441-9-leo.yan@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190119014347.27441-9-leo.yan@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 09:43:47AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote: > When return from exception, we need to distinguish if it's system call > return or for other type exceptions for setting sample flags. Due to > the exception return packet doesn't contain exception number, so we > cannot decide sample flags based on exception number. > > On the other hand, the exception return packet is followed by an > instruction range packet; this range packet deliveries the start address > after exception handling, we can check if it is a SVC instruction just > before the start address. If there has one SVC instruction is found > ahead the return address, this means it's an exception return for system > call; otherwise it is an normal return for other exceptions. > > This patch is to set sample flags for exception return packet, firstly > it simply set sample flags as PERF_IP_FLAG_INTERRUPT for all exception > returns since at this point it doesn't know what's exactly the exception > type. We will defer to decide if it's an exception return for system > call when the next instruction range packet comes, it checks if there > has one SVC instruction prior to the start address and if so we will > change sample flags to PERF_IP_FLAG_SYSCALLRET for system call > return. > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan > --- > tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c > index 052805de6513..7547a7178f46 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c > @@ -1372,6 +1372,20 @@ static int cs_etm__set_sample_flags(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq) > if (prev_packet->sample_type == CS_ETM_DISCONTINUITY) > prev_packet->flags |= PERF_IP_FLAG_BRANCH | > PERF_IP_FLAG_TRACE_BEGIN; > + > + /* > + * If the previous packet is an exception return packet > + * and the return address just follows SVC instuction, > + * it needs to calibrate the previous packet sample flags > + * as PERF_IP_FLAG_SYSCALLRET. > + */ > + if (prev_packet->flags == (PERF_IP_FLAG_BRANCH | > + PERF_IP_FLAG_RETURN | > + PERF_IP_FLAG_INTERRUPT) && Would it make more sense to just look for prev-packet->sample_type == CS_ETM_EXCEPTION_RET ? > + cs_etm__is_svc_instr(etmq, packet, packet->start_addr)) > + prev_packet->flags = PERF_IP_FLAG_BRANCH | > + PERF_IP_FLAG_RETURN | > + PERF_IP_FLAG_SYSCALLRET; > break; > case CS_ETM_DISCONTINUITY: > /* > @@ -1422,6 +1436,36 @@ static int cs_etm__set_sample_flags(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq) > prev_packet->flags = packet->flags; > break; > case CS_ETM_EXCEPTION_RET: > + /* > + * When the exception return packet is inserted, since > + * exception return packet is not used standalone for > + * generating samples and it's affiliation to the previous > + * instruction range packet; so set previous range packet > + * flags to tell perf it is an exception return branch. > + * > + * The exception return can be for either system call or > + * other exception types; unfortunately the packet doesn't > + * contain exception type related info so we cannot decide > + * the exception type purely based on exception return packet. > + * If we record the exception number from exception packet and > + * reuse it for excpetion return packet, this is not reliable > + * due the trace can be discontinuity or the interrupt can > + * be nested, thus the recorded exception number cannot be > + * used for exception return packet for these two cases. > + * > + * For exception return packet, we only need to distinguish the > + * packet is for system call or for other types. Thus the > + * decision can be deferred when receive the next packet which > + * contains the return address, based on the return address we > + * can read out the previous instruction and check if it's a > + * system call instruction and then calibrate the sample flag > + * as needed. > + */ > + if (prev_packet->sample_type == CS_ETM_RANGE) > + prev_packet->flags = PERF_IP_FLAG_BRANCH | > + PERF_IP_FLAG_RETURN | > + PERF_IP_FLAG_INTERRUPT; > + break; > case CS_ETM_EMPTY: > default: > break; > -- > 2.17.1 >