All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Du, Changbin" <changbin.du@intel.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
	alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: changbin.du@intel.com
Subject: Does perf-annotate work correctly?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:10:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170912101035.GA21638@intel.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6207 bytes --]


When a annotate a symbol, I find the annotated C source code doesn't match assembly code.
So I cannot determine which line of C code has much overhead withou gdb's help.

Here is a example result of function apic_has_interrupt_for_ppr() in kvm module.

       │580         __clear_bit(KVM_APIC_PV_EOI_PENDING, &vcpu->arch.apic_attention);    ▒
       │581 }                                                                            ▒
       │                                                                                 ▒
       │583 static int apic_has_interrupt_for_ppr(struct kvm_lapic *apic, u32 ppr)       ▒
       │584 {                                                                            ▒
  0.88 │30:   cmpb   $0x0,0x91(%rdi)                                                     ▒
  2.54 │    ↓ je     63                                                                  ▒
  0.20 │      mov    0xa0(%rdi),%rcx                                                     ▒
       │581         int highest_irr;                                                     ▒
       │582         if (kvm_x86_ops->sync_pir_to_irr && apic->vcpu->arch.apicv_active)   ▒
  4.91 │      mov    $0xe0,%eax                       x                                   ▒
  1.46 │45:   mov    %eax,%edx                        x                                   ▒
  0.02 │      sar    $0x5,%edx                        x                                   ▒
  3.57 │      shl    $0x4,%edx                        x                                   ▒
  3.34 │      movslq %edx,%rdx                        x                                   ▒
  1.25 │      mov    0x200(%rcx,%rdx,1),%edx          x                                   ▒
 42.44 │      test   %edx,%edx                        x                                   ▒
  0.01 │   ┌──jne    88                               x                                   ▒
  3.48 │   │  sub    $0x20,%eax                       x                                   ▒
  2.24 │   │  cmp    $0xffffffe0,%eax                 x                                   ▒
       │586│apic_find_highest_irr():                                                     ▒
       │   │                                                                             ▒
       │407│        /*                                                                   ▒
       │408│         * Note that irr_pending is just a hint. It will be always           ▒
       │409│         * true with virtual interrupt delivery enabled.                     ▒
       │410│         */                                                                  ▒
       │411│        if (!apic->irr_pending)                                              ▒
       │   │↑ jne    45                                                                  ▒
  0.62 │63:│  mov    $0xffffffff,%eax                                                    ◆
  0.83 │   │  leaveq                                                                     ▒
 13.52 │   │← retq                                                                       ▒
       │6a:│  mov    %esi,-0x4(%rbp)                                                     ▒
       │   │  mov    %rdx,%rdi                                                           ▒
       │418│find_highest_vector():                                                       ▒
       │340│static int find_highest_vector(void *bitmap)                                 ▒
       │341│{                                                                            ▒
       │342│        int vec;                                                             ▒
       │343│        u32 *reg;                                                            ▒
       │   │                                                                             ▒
       │345│        for (vec = MAX_APIC_VECTOR - APIC_VECTORS_PER_REG;                   ▒
       │   │→ callq  *%rax                                                               ▒
       │   │  mov    -0x4(%rbp),%esi                                                     ▒
       │343│             vec >= 0; vec -= APIC_VECTORS_PER_REG) {                        ▒
       │344│                reg = bitmap + REG_POS(vec);                                 ▒
       │345│                if (*reg)                                                    ▒
  0.05 │75:│  cmp    $0xffffffff,%eax                                                    ▒
       │   │↑ je     63                                                                  ▒
  1.95 │   │  mov    %eax,%edx                                                           ▒
  1.45 │   │  and    $0xf0,%edx                                                          


Look at the assembly code block where I have put a 'x' on the right. Apparently the
assembly code doesn't match the C source code arrounded. Let's look the correct disassemble
result from gdb:

340		for (vec = MAX_APIC_VECTOR - APIC_VECTORS_PER_REG;
   0x000000000003b4e0 <+64>:	mov    $0xe0,%eax

342			reg = bitmap + REG_POS(vec);
343			if (*reg)
   0x000000000003b4e5 <+69>:	mov    %eax,%edx
   0x000000000003b4e7 <+71>:	sar    $0x5,%edx
   0x000000000003b4ea <+74>:	shl    $0x4,%edx
   0x000000000003b4ed <+77>:	movslq %edx,%rdx
   0x000000000003b4f0 <+80>:	mov    0x200(%rcx,%rdx,1),%edx
   0x000000000003b4f7 <+87>:	test   %edx,%edx
   0x000000000003b4f9 <+89>:	jne    0x3b528 <apic_has_interrupt_for_ppr+136>

341		     vec >= 0; vec -= APIC_VECTORS_PER_REG) {
   0x000000000003b4fb <+91>:	sub    $0x20,%eax

340		for (vec = MAX_APIC_VECTOR - APIC_VECTORS_PER_REG;
   0x000000000003b4fe <+94>:	cmp    $0xffffffe0,%eax
   0x000000000003b501 <+97>:	jne    0x3b4e5 <apic_has_interrupt_for_ppr+69>


Compared to gdb, perf-annoate has messed up. is it a bug or just perf is not as perfect as gdb?

-- 
Thanks,
Changbin Du

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2017-09-12 10:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-12 10:10 Du, Changbin [this message]
2017-09-12 14:33 ` Does perf-annotate work correctly? Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2017-09-13  1:54   ` Du, Changbin
2017-09-26  6:06     ` Du, Changbin
2017-09-13  9:14   ` Du, Changbin
2017-10-13 10:15     ` Du, Changbin
2017-10-16  9:28       ` Jiri Olsa
2017-10-16  9:34         ` Du, Changbin
2017-10-16  9:30       ` Jiri Olsa
2017-10-16  9:35         ` Du, Changbin
2017-10-16 10:45           ` Jiri Olsa

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=20170912101035.GA21638@intel.com \
    --to=changbin.du@intel.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@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.