From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: perf: allow tracing with kernel tracepoints events
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:53:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140618125355.GA2186@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1403025065-18001-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Hi Jean,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:11:05PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> When tracing with tracepoints events the IP and CPSR are set to 0,
> preventing the perf code to resolve the symbols:
>
> ./perf record -e kmem:kmalloc cal
> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.007 MB perf.data (~321 samples) ]
>
> ./perf report
> Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> ........ ....... ............. ...........
> 40.78% cal [unknown] [.]00000000
> 31.6% cal [unknown] [.]00000000
>
> The examination of the gathered samples (perf report -D) shows the IP
> is set to 0 and that the samples are considered as user space samples,
> while the IP should be set from the registers and the samples should be
> considered as kernel samples.
>
> The fix is to implement perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs for ARM, which
> fills the necessary registers used for the callchain unwinding and
> to determine the user/kernel space property of the samples: ip, sp, fp
> and cpsr.
Surely its only the CPSR that identifies whether it's user or kernel?
> Tested with perf record and tracepoints filtering (-e <tracepoint>), with
> unwinding using fp (--call-graph fp) and dwarf info (--call-graph dwarf).
Whilst the old ACPS unwinding only needs PC, FP and SP, is this definitely
true for exidx and DWARF-based unwinding? Given that libunwind ends up
running a state machine for the latter, can we guarantee that we won't hit
instructions that require access to other general purpose registers?
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
Sneha Priya <sneha.cse@hotmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: perf: allow tracing with kernel tracepoints events
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:53:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140618125355.GA2186@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1403025065-18001-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Hi Jean,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:11:05PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> When tracing with tracepoints events the IP and CPSR are set to 0,
> preventing the perf code to resolve the symbols:
>
> ./perf record -e kmem:kmalloc cal
> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.007 MB perf.data (~321 samples) ]
>
> ./perf report
> Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> ........ ....... ............. ...........
> 40.78% cal [unknown] [.]00000000
> 31.6% cal [unknown] [.]00000000
>
> The examination of the gathered samples (perf report -D) shows the IP
> is set to 0 and that the samples are considered as user space samples,
> while the IP should be set from the registers and the samples should be
> considered as kernel samples.
>
> The fix is to implement perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs for ARM, which
> fills the necessary registers used for the callchain unwinding and
> to determine the user/kernel space property of the samples: ip, sp, fp
> and cpsr.
Surely its only the CPSR that identifies whether it's user or kernel?
> Tested with perf record and tracepoints filtering (-e <tracepoint>), with
> unwinding using fp (--call-graph fp) and dwarf info (--call-graph dwarf).
Whilst the old ACPS unwinding only needs PC, FP and SP, is this definitely
true for exidx and DWARF-based unwinding? Given that libunwind ends up
running a state machine for the latter, can we guarantee that we won't hit
instructions that require access to other general purpose registers?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-18 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-16 15:01 [PATCH] [RFC] ARM: perf: allow tracing with kernel tracepoints events Jean Pihet
2014-05-16 15:01 ` Jean Pihet
2014-05-19 15:39 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-19 15:39 ` Will Deacon
2014-05-19 15:58 ` Jean Pihet
2014-05-19 15:58 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-17 17:11 ` [PATCH] " Jean Pihet
2014-06-17 17:11 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-18 12:53 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2014-06-18 12:53 ` Will Deacon
2014-06-20 8:10 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-20 8:10 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-25 9:01 ` Will Deacon
2014-06-25 9:01 ` Will Deacon
2014-06-25 14:54 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-25 14:54 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-26 9:00 ` Will Deacon
2014-06-26 9:00 ` Will Deacon
2014-06-27 14:53 ` Jean Pihet
2014-06-27 14:53 ` Jean Pihet
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=20140618125355.GA2186@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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: link
Be 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.