Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] perf cs-etm: Synchronize instruction sample with the thread stack

[Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>]

Hi Mike,

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:01:52PM +0000, Mike Leach wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 02:08, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > The synthesized flow use 'tidq->packet' for instruction samples; on the
> > other hand, 'tidp->prev_packet' is used to generate the thread stack and
> > the branch samples, this results in the instruction samples using one
> > packet ahead than thread stack and branch samples ('tidp->prev_packet'
> > vs 'tidq->packet').
> >
> > This leads to an instruction's callchain error as shows in below
> > example:
> >
> >   main  1579        100      instructions:
> >         ffff000010214854 perf_event_update_userpage+0x4c ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff000010214850 perf_event_update_userpage+0x48 ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff000010219360 perf_swevent_add+0x88 ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff0000102135f4 event_sched_in.isra.57+0xbc ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff0000102137a0 group_sched_in+0x60 ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff000010213b84 flexible_sched_in+0xfc ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff00001020c0b4 visit_groups_merge+0x12c ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >
> > In the callchain log, for the two continuous lines the up line contains
> > one child function info and the followed line contains the caller
> > function info, and so forth.  So the first two lines are:
> >
> >   perf_event_update_userpage+0x4c  => the sampled instruction
> >   perf_event_update_userpage+0x48  => the parent function's calling
> >
> > The child function and parent function both are the same function
> > perf_event_update_userpage(), but this isn't a recursive function, thus
> > the sequence for perf_event_update_userpage() calling itself shouldn't
> > never happen.  This callchain error is caused by the instruction sample
> > using an ahead packet than the thread stack, the thread stack is deferred
> > to process the new packet and misses to pop stack if it is just a return
> > packet.
> >
> > To fix this issue, we can simply change to use 'tidq->prev_packet' to
> > generate the instruction samples, this allows the thread stack to push
> > and pop synchronously with instruction sample.  Finally, the callchain
> > can be displayed correctly as below:
> >
> >   main  1579        100      instructions:
> >         ffff000010214854 perf_event_update_userpage+0x4c ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff000010219360 perf_swevent_add+0x88 ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff0000102135f4 event_sched_in.isra.57+0xbc ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff0000102137a0 group_sched_in+0x60 ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff000010213b84 flexible_sched_in+0xfc ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >         ffff00001020c0b4 visit_groups_merge+0x12c ([kernel.kallsyms])
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c
> > index 8f805657658d..410e40ce19f2 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c
> > @@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ static int cs_etm__sample(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >         struct cs_etm_packet *tmp;
> >         int ret;
> >         u8 trace_chan_id = tidq->trace_chan_id;
> > -       u64 instrs_executed = tidq->packet->instr_count;
> > +       u64 instrs_executed = tidq->prev_packet->instr_count;
> >
> >         tidq->period_instructions += instrs_executed;
> >
> > @@ -1505,7 +1505,8 @@ static int cs_etm__sample(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >                          * instruction)
> >                          */
> >                         addr = cs_etm__instr_addr(etmq, trace_chan_id,
> > -                                                 tidq->packet, offset - 1);
> > +                                                 tidq->prev_packet,
> > +                                                 offset - 1);
> >                         ret = cs_etm__synth_instruction_sample(
> >                                 etmq, tidq, addr,
> >                                 etm->instructions_sample_period);
> > @@ -1525,7 +1526,8 @@ static int cs_etm__sample(struct cs_etm_queue *etmq,
> >                          * instruction)
> >                          */
> >                         addr = cs_etm__instr_addr(etmq, trace_chan_id,
> > -                                                 tidq->packet, offset - 1);
> > +                                                 tidq->prev_packet,
> > +                                                 offset - 1);
> >                         ret = cs_etm__synth_instruction_sample(
> >                                 etmq, tidq, addr,
> >                                 etm->instructions_sample_period);
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> I am really not convinced that this is a correct solution.
> 
> Consider a set of trace range packet inputs:
> current: 0x3000-0x3050
> prev:  0x2000-0x2100
> prev-1: 0x1020-0x1080
> 
> Before your modification.....
> cs_etm__sample()  processes the current packet....
> 
> On entry, the branch stack will contain:0x1080=>0x2000;
> 
> We add to this from the current packet to get: 0x1080=>0x2000; 0x2100=>0x3000;
> 
> This is then copied by cs_etm__copy_last_branch_rb()
> 
> We find the instruction sample address in the range 0x3000 to 0x3050,
> e.g. 0x3010.
> cs_etm__synth_instruction_sample() will then generate a sample with values
> 
> sample.ip = 0x3010
> sample.branch_stack = 0x1080=>0x2000; 0x2100=>0x3000;
> 
> to be passed to the perf session / injected as required.
> This sample has the correct branch context for the sampled address -
> i.e. how the code arrived @0x3010
> 
> After the modification.....
> The branch stack will be the same, but the sample address will be from
> the range 0x2000-0x2010, e.g. 0x2008 to give a sample in
> cs_etm__synth_instruction_sample() of
> sample.ip = 0x2008
> sample.branch_stack = 0x1080=>0x2000; 0x2100=>0x3000;
> 
> This really does not make much sense  - the branch stack no longer
> relates to the sample.ip.
> 
> Further - cs_etm__synth_instruction_sample() calls cs_etm__copy_insn()
> using the _current_ packet and sample.ip. This is a clear mismatch.
> 
> I don't know what is causing the apparent error in the callchain, but
> given that the previous features added in this set, work without this
> alteration, I feel there must be another solution.

Good catch!  Thanks a lot for very detailed analysis.

I root caused this issue is relevant with the sequence between two
functions thread_stack__event() and thread_stack__sample().

In this series, thread_stack__sample() is prior to thread_stack__event(),
thus the thread stack event cannot be handled before thread stack
generation.

If move the function thread_stack__event() up and place it before
instruction sample synthesizing; thread_stack__event() can be invoked
prior to thread_stack__sample(), then I can see the thread stack can
be popped properly and the issue can be fixed.  Simply to say, patch
0002 should change the code as below:

         /*
          * Record a branch when the last instruction in
          * PREV_PACKET is a branch.
          */
         if (etm->synth_opts.last_branch &&                                 
             tidq->prev_packet->sample_type == CS_ETM_RANGE &&              
             tidq->prev_packet->last_instr_taken_branch)                    
                 cs_etm__update_last_branch_rb(etmq, tidq);                 
                                                                            
         /*                                                                 
          * The stack event must be processed prior to synthesizing         
          * instruction sample; this can ensure the instruction samples     
          * to generate correct thread stack.                               
          */                                                                
         if (tidq->prev_packet->last_instr_taken_branch)                    
                 cs_etm__add_stack_event(etmq, tidq);                       
                                                                            
         if (etm->sample_instructions &&                                    
             tidq->period_instructions >= etm->instructions_sample_period) {

                cs_etm__synth_instruction_sample();
                    `-> thread_stack__sample();

         }

Does this make sense for you?

Thanks,
Leo Yan

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel