From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Olsa Subject: Re: [RFC] perf callchain: Compare dsos (as well) for CCKEY_FUNCTION Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:08:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20171004130834.GD23759@krava> References: <20171004061308.1246-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48690 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751278AbdJDNIi (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:08:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171004061308.1246-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-perf-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ravi Bangoria Cc: pozdneyev@gmail.com, acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, yao.jin@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org, kjlx@templeofstupid.com, milian.wolff@kdab.com, zhangmengting@huawei.com On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 11:43:08AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > Two functions from different binaries can have same start > address. Thus, comparing only start address in match_chain() > leads to inconsistent callchains. Fix this by adding a check > for dsos as well. > > Ex, https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg04067.html > > Reported-by: Alexander Pozdneev > Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria > --- > tools/perf/util/callchain.c | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/callchain.c b/tools/perf/util/callchain.c > index 510b513..6d5a483 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/callchain.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/callchain.c > @@ -678,6 +678,9 @@ static enum match_result match_chain(struct callchain_cursor_node *node, > { > struct symbol *sym = node->sym; > u64 left, right; > + struct dso *left_dso = NULL; > + struct dso *right_dso = NULL; > + > > if (callchain_param.key == CCKEY_SRCLINE) { > enum match_result match = match_chain_srcline(node, cnode); > @@ -689,12 +692,16 @@ static enum match_result match_chain(struct callchain_cursor_node *node, > if (cnode->ms.sym && sym && callchain_param.key == CCKEY_FUNCTION) { > left = cnode->ms.sym->start; > right = sym->start; > + if (cnode->ms.map && node->map) { > + left_dso = cnode->ms.map->dso; > + right_dso = node->map->dso; makes sense.. but why not to get those maps separately? if (cnode->ms.map) left_dso = cnode->ms.map->dso; if (node->map) { right_dso = node->map->dso; I'd think that if one is missing, it's most likely different map/dso and you want to fail the == check jirka > + } > } else { > left = cnode->ip; > right = node->ip; > } > > - if (left == right) { > + if (left == right && left_dso == right_dso) { > if (node->branch) { > cnode->branch_count++; > > -- > 1.8.3.1 >