From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
Cc: "Jiri Olsa" <jolsa@redhat.com>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, "Jiri Olsa" <jolsa@kernel.org>,
"Namhyung Kim" <namhyung@kernel.org>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf report: Support caller callchain order when using DWARF unwinder.
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:19:44 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151102211944.GR2923@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2192570.dg0L2eaEiH@agathebauer>
Em Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 07:29:34PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Montag, 5. Oktober 2015 13:08:36 CEST Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 05:38:17PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 05:16:37PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > > > We cannot reverse the order of the libunwind stepper. To workaround
> > > > this, we store the IPs in a temporary stack buffer and then walk
> > > > this buffer in reverse order when callchain_param.order is set to
> > > > ORDER_CALLER.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
> > >
> > > Jiri,
> > >
> > > Can you please take a look at this?
> > >
> > > - Arnaldo
> > >
> > > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c
> > > > b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c index 4c00507..bf631f1 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c
> > > > @@ -621,11 +621,24 @@ static int get_entries(struct unwind_info *ui,
> > > > unwind_entry_cb_t cb,> >
> > > > if (ret)
> > > >
> > > > display_error(ret);
> > > >
> > > > - while (!ret && (unw_step(&c) > 0) && max_stack--) {
> > > > - unw_word_t ip;
> > > > + if (callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLEE) {
> > > > + while (!ret && (unw_step(&c) > 0) && max_stack--) {
> > > > + unw_word_t ip;
> > > >
> > > > - unw_get_reg(&c, UNW_REG_IP, &ip);
> > > > - ret = ip ? entry(ip, ui->thread, cb, arg) : 0;
> > > > + unw_get_reg(&c, UNW_REG_IP, &ip);
> > > > + ret = ip ? entry(ip, ui->thread, cb, arg) : 0;
> > > > + }
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + unw_word_t ips[max_stack];
> > > > + int i = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + while ((unw_step(&c) > 0) && i < max_stack) {
> > > > + unw_get_reg(&c, UNW_REG_IP, &ips[i]);
> > > > + ++i;
> > > > + }
> > > > + max_stack = i;
> > > > + for (i = max_stack - 1; i >= 0; --i)
> > > > + entry(ips[i], ui->thread, cb, arg);
> >
> > there's no check for return value of entry callback
> >
> > also I wonder would it be better to store into ips[] within
> > the single loop all the time, and iterate throught it after
> > forward/backward based on the callchain_param.order
> >
> > please check attached patch, totaly untested, probably leaking some index
> > ;-)
> >
> > any chance this could be done also for util/unwind-libdw.c ?
>
> That patch looks much better than mine. I'll try it out later next week and
> will also have a look at util/unwind-libdw.c. Question: How can I test the
So, you tried this patch, right? Jiri, have you submitted this in some
other message I missed?
- Arnaldo
> behavior of the latter? Do I need to uninstall libunwind, or can I change the
> unwinder at runtime somehow (env var?).
>
> Also, are there unit tests for this behavior somewhere?
> --
> Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Software Engineer
> KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
> Tel: +49-30-521325470
> KDAB - The Qt Experts
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-02 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-04 15:16 [PATCH] perf report: Support caller callchain order when using DWARF unwinder Milian Wolff
2015-10-04 20:38 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-10-05 11:08 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-10-09 17:29 ` Milian Wolff
2015-11-02 21:19 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [this message]
2015-11-03 7:33 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-11-03 12:06 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-11-03 12:54 ` Milian Wolff
2015-11-03 14:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-11-03 14:30 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-11-03 14:32 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-11-03 15:11 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2015-11-03 7:37 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-11-03 11:25 ` Milian Wolff
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=20151102211944.GR2923@kernel.org \
--to=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=milian.wolff@kdab.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).