All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: ARM64 perf stacktraces on tracepoint events
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:44:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170302104349.GA19632@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEi0qNm3NKSWQOD6A2Z0NTNEfp1kLNEZz-=y+dbVCwYMP0HFoQ@mail.gmail.com>

[Adding James, Takahiro-san, and Will, for stacktracing and arm64 perf]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:42:17PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 3.18 kernel running on an arm64 device, I tried running:
> perf record -a -g -e sched:sched_wakeup
> 
> I was expecting something like the output at:
> www.brendangregg.com/perf.html
> 
> But I don't see stacktraces, could I be missing any patches you could
> point me to?

I can't spot much obvious, looking at arm64's stacktrace.c and perf_callchain.c
since v3.18. There's commit:

  9702970c7bd3e2d6 (Revert "ARM64: unwind: Fix PC calculation")

... though that was Cc'd stable.

I can't immediately see why that would truncate unwinding, though I'm also not
sure how perf and ftrace interact here, so I may be missing something obvious.

> I do see stack traces if I do regular perf profiling
> (perf record -F 99 -a -g).

> Below is the output I get. Thanks for any insight into this.
> 
> Regards,
> Joel
> 
> sailfish:/data # ./perf report
>        # Samples: 22  of event 'sched:sched_wakeup'
> # Event count (approx.): 410333
> #
> # Children      Self  Trace output
> # ........  ........
> .............................................................
> #
>     61.29%    61.29%  comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=3 prio=120 success=1 target_cpu=000
>             |
>             ---0
> 
>     33.25%    33.25%  comm=hw pid=12777 prio=120 success=1 target_cpu=002
>             |
>             ---0
> 
>      2.46%     2.46%  comm=kworker/u8:2 pid=12482 prio=120 success=1
> target_cpu=002
>             |
>             ---0
> 
>      1.39%     1.39%  comm=migration/2 pid=21 prio=0 success=1 target_cpu=002
>             |
>             ---0


FWIW, on a recent HEAD (86292b33d4b79ee0), I see reasonable looking backtraces,
e.g.

    77.48%     0.00%  swapper      [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_idle
            |
            ---do_idle
               |          
               |--68.84%--call_cpuidle
               |          cpuidle_enter
               |          cpuidle_enter_state
               |          |          
               |           --61.05%--el1_irq
               |                     gic_handle_irq
               |                     __handle_domain_irq
               |                     irq_exit
               |                     __do_softirq
               |                     |          
               |                     |--22.29%--run_timer_softirq


Thanks,
Mark.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel.opensrc@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	peterz@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org,
	alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	bgregg@netflix.com,
	Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	will.deacon@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
	takahiro.akashi@linaro.org
Subject: Re: ARM64 perf stacktraces on tracepoint events
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:44:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170302104349.GA19632@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEi0qNm3NKSWQOD6A2Z0NTNEfp1kLNEZz-=y+dbVCwYMP0HFoQ@mail.gmail.com>

[Adding James, Takahiro-san, and Will, for stacktracing and arm64 perf]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:42:17PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 3.18 kernel running on an arm64 device, I tried running:
> perf record -a -g -e sched:sched_wakeup
> 
> I was expecting something like the output at:
> www.brendangregg.com/perf.html
> 
> But I don't see stacktraces, could I be missing any patches you could
> point me to?

I can't spot much obvious, looking at arm64's stacktrace.c and perf_callchain.c
since v3.18. There's commit:

  9702970c7bd3e2d6 (Revert "ARM64: unwind: Fix PC calculation")

... though that was Cc'd stable.

I can't immediately see why that would truncate unwinding, though I'm also not
sure how perf and ftrace interact here, so I may be missing something obvious.

> I do see stack traces if I do regular perf profiling
> (perf record -F 99 -a -g).

> Below is the output I get. Thanks for any insight into this.
> 
> Regards,
> Joel
> 
> sailfish:/data # ./perf report
>        # Samples: 22  of event 'sched:sched_wakeup'
> # Event count (approx.): 410333
> #
> # Children      Self  Trace output
> # ........  ........
> .............................................................
> #
>     61.29%    61.29%  comm=ksoftirqd/0 pid=3 prio=120 success=1 target_cpu=000
>             |
>             ---0
> 
>     33.25%    33.25%  comm=hw pid=12777 prio=120 success=1 target_cpu=002
>             |
>             ---0
> 
>      2.46%     2.46%  comm=kworker/u8:2 pid=12482 prio=120 success=1
> target_cpu=002
>             |
>             ---0
> 
>      1.39%     1.39%  comm=migration/2 pid=21 prio=0 success=1 target_cpu=002
>             |
>             ---0


FWIW, on a recent HEAD (86292b33d4b79ee0), I see reasonable looking backtraces,
e.g.

    77.48%     0.00%  swapper      [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] do_idle
            |
            ---do_idle
               |          
               |--68.84%--call_cpuidle
               |          cpuidle_enter
               |          cpuidle_enter_state
               |          |          
               |           --61.05%--el1_irq
               |                     gic_handle_irq
               |                     __handle_domain_irq
               |                     irq_exit
               |                     __do_softirq
               |                     |          
               |                     |--22.29%--run_timer_softirq


Thanks,
Mark.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-02 10:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-02  0:42 ARM64 perf stacktraces on tracepoint events Joel Fernandes
2017-03-02  0:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-03-02 10:44 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2017-03-02 10:44   ` Mark Rutland
2017-03-02 23:21   ` Kim Phillips
2017-03-02 23:21     ` Kim Phillips

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=20170302104349.GA19632@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland@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.