Re: [PATCH] perf env: Normalize aarch64.* to arm64 in normalize_arch()

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@huawei.com>
Cc: jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
	mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
	namhyung@kernel.org, mliska@suse.cz, irogers@google.com,
	dzhu@wavecomp.com, rickyman7@gmail.com, yao.jin@linux.intel.com,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	zhangjinhao2@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf env: Normalize aarch64.* to arm64 in normalize_arch()
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:23:53 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPsXSRi+8z5ozc/U@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210723014944.214887-1-lihuafei1@huawei.com>

Em Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:49:44AM +0800, Li Huafei escreveu:
> On my aarch64 big endian machine, the perf annotate does not work.
> 
>  # perf annotate
>   Percent |      Source code & Disassembly of [kernel.kallsyms] for cycles (253 samples, percent: local period)
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Percent |      Source code & Disassembly of [kernel.kallsyms] for cycles (1 samples, percent: local period)
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Percent |      Source code & Disassembly of [kernel.kallsyms] for cycles (47 samples, percent: local period)
>  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  ...
> 
> This is because the arch_find() function uses the normalized architecture
> name provided by normalize_arch(), and my machine's architecture name
> aarch64_be is not normalized to arm64.  Like other architectures such as
> arm and powerpc, we can fuzzy match the architecture names associated with
> aarch64.* and normalize them.

This looks ok modulo fixing the problem and adding that extra pr_err()
in a single patch, please split this into two.

Also I fail to see why c34df25b40c2 introduced this problem :-\

Can some ARM person ack/review this, please?

- Arnaldo

> Fixes: c34df25b40c2 ("perf annotate: Add symbol__annotate function")
> Signed-off-by: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@huawei.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/util/annotate.c | 4 +++-
>  tools/perf/util/env.c      | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
> index aa04a3655236..cb280de3369f 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
> @@ -2192,8 +2192,10 @@ int symbol__annotate(struct map_symbol *ms, struct evsel *evsel,
>  		return errno;
>  
>  	args.arch = arch = arch__find(arch_name);
> -	if (arch == NULL)
> +	if (arch == NULL) {
> +		pr_err("%s: unsupported arch %s\n", __func__, arch_name);
>  		return ENOTSUP;
> +	}
>  
>  	if (parch)
>  		*parch = arch;
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/env.c b/tools/perf/util/env.c
> index cec2e6cad8aa..a91da1e9b201 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/env.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/env.c
> @@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ static const char *normalize_arch(char *arch)
>  		return "x86";
>  	if (!strcmp(arch, "sun4u") || !strncmp(arch, "sparc", 5))
>  		return "sparc";
> -	if (!strcmp(arch, "aarch64") || !strcmp(arch, "arm64"))
> +	if (!strncmp(arch, "aarch64", 7) || !strcmp(arch, "arm64"))
>  		return "arm64";
>  	if (!strncmp(arch, "arm", 3) || !strcmp(arch, "sa110"))
>  		return "arm";
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

-- 

- Arnaldo