Re: [PATCH] Properly interpret indirect call in perf annotate.

["Martin Liška" <mliska@suse.cz>]

On 08/28/2018 04:18 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:10:47AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
>> Em Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Martin Liška escreveu:
>>> On 08/23/2018 04:12 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>> Em Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:29:34PM +0200, Martin Liška escreveu:
>>>>> The patch changes interpretation of:
>>>>> callq  *0x8(%rbx)
>>>>>
>>>>> from:
>>>>>    0.26 │     → callq  *8
>>>>> to:
>>>>>    0.26 │     → callq  *0x8(%rbx)
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>>>> Please mention one or two functions where such sequence appears, so that
>>>> others can reproduce your before/after more quickly,
> 
>>> Sure, there's self-contained example on can compile (-O2) and test.
>>> It's following call in test function:
> 
>>> test:
>>> .LFB1:
>>>          .cfi_startproc
>>>          movq    %rdi, %rax
>>>          subq    $8, %rsp
>>>          .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
>>>          movq    %rsi, %rdi
>>>          movq    %rdx, %rsi
>>>          call    *8(%rax) <---- here
>>>          cmpl    $1, %eax
>>>          adcl    $-1, %eax
>>>          addq    $8, %rsp
>>>          .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
>>>          ret
>>>          .cfi_endproc
>>
>> Here I'm getting:
>>
>> Samples: 2K of event 'cycles:uppp', 4000 Hz, Event count (approx.): 1808551484
>> test  /home/acme/c/perf-callq [Percent: local period]
>>    0.17 │      mov    %rdx,-0x28(%rbp)
>>    0.58 │      mov    -0x18(%rbp),%rax
>>    7.90 │      mov    0x8(%rax),%rax
>>    8.67 │      mov    -0x28(%rbp),%rcx
>>         │      mov    -0x20(%rbp),%rdx
>>    0.08 │      mov    %rcx,%rsi
>>    6.28 │      mov    %rdx,%rdi
>>   10.50 │    → callq  *%rax
>>    1.67 │      mov    %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
>>   11.95 │      cmpl   $0x0,-0x4(%rbp)
>>    8.14 │    ↓ je     3d
>>         │      mov    -0x4(%rbp),%eax
>>         │      sub    $0x1,%eax
>>         │    ↓ jmp    42
>>         │3d:   mov    $0x0,%eax
>>    7.84 │42:   leaveq
>>         │    ← retq
>>
>> Without the patch, will check if something changes with it.

Hi Arnaldo.

Thanks for re-sending of the patch and for the testing. The example I sent
is dependent on version of GCC compiler.

> 
> No changes with the patch, but then I did another test, ran a system
> wide record for a while, then tested without/with your patch, with
> --stdio2 redirecting to /tmp/{before,after} and got the expected
> results, see below.
> 
> Thanks, applying,

Good!
Martin

> 
> - Arnaldo
> 
> --- /tmp/before 2018-08-28 11:16:03.238384143 -0300
> +++ /tmp/after  2018-08-28 11:15:39.335341042 -0300
> @@ -13274,7 +13274,7 @@
>                ↓ jle    128
>                  hash_value = hash_table->hash_func (key);
>                  mov    0x8(%rsp),%rdi
> -  0.91       → callq  *30
> +  0.91       → callq  *0x30(%r12)
>                  mov    $0x2,%r8d
>                  cmp    $0x2,%eax
>                  node_hash = hash_table->hashes[node_index];
> @@ -13848,7 +13848,7 @@
>                   mov    %r14,%rdi
>                   sub    %rbx,%r13
>                   mov    %r13,%rdx
> -              → callq  *38
> +              → callq  *0x38(%r15)
>                   cmp    %rax,%r13
>     1.91        ↓ je     240
>            1b4:   mov    $0xffffffff,%r13d
> @@ -14026,7 +14026,7 @@
>                   mov    %rcx,-0x500(%rbp)
>                   mov    %r15,%rsi
>                   mov    %r14,%rdi
> -              → callq  *38
> +              → callq  *0x38(%rax)
>                   mov    -0x500(%rbp),%rcx
>                   cmp    %rax,%rcx
>                 ↓ jne    9b0
> <SNIP tons of other such cases>
>