public inbox for linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org,
	namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
	dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com
Cc: agordeev@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
	sumanthk@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, japo@linux.ibm.com,
	Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] perf record: Add support for arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() on s390
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:06:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260317110641.39975-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com> (raw)

commit e5e66adfe45a6 ("perf regs: Remove __weak attributive arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() function")
removes arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() functions and s390 support is lost.
The following warning is printed:

  Unknown ELF machine 22, standard arguments parse will be skipped.

ELF machine 22 is the EM_S390 host. This happens with command
  # ./perf record -v -- stress-ng -t 1s --matrix 0
on a z/VM system when the event is not specified.

Add s390 specific __perf_sdt_arg_parse_op_s390() function to support
-architecture calls to arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() for s390.
The warning disappears.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Tested-by: Jan Polensky <japo@linux.ibm.com>
---
 .../perf/util/perf-regs-arch/perf_regs_s390.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++
 tools/perf/util/perf_regs.c                   |  3 +
 tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h                   |  1 +
 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/perf/util/perf-regs-arch/perf_regs_s390.c b/tools/perf/util/perf-regs-arch/perf_regs_s390.c
index c61df24edf0f..2aa70eb23311 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/perf-regs-arch/perf_regs_s390.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/perf-regs-arch/perf_regs_s390.c
@@ -1,7 +1,13 @@
 // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <regex.h>
 #include "../perf_regs.h"
 #include "../../arch/s390/include/perf_regs.h"
+#include "debug.h"
+
+#include <linux/zalloc.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
 
 uint64_t __perf_reg_mask_s390(bool intr __maybe_unused)
 {
@@ -95,3 +101,86 @@ uint64_t __perf_reg_sp_s390(void)
 {
 	return PERF_REG_S390_R15;
 }
+
+/* %rXX */
+#define SDT_OP_REGEX1  "^%(r([0-9]|1[0-5]))$"
+/* -###(%rXX) */
+#define SDT_OP_REGEX2  "^([+-]?[0-9]+)\\(%(r[0-9]|r1[0-5])\\)$"
+static regex_t sdt_op_regex1, sdt_op_regex2;
+
+static int sdt_init_op_regex(void)
+{
+	static int initialized;
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	if (initialized)
+		return 0;
+
+	ret = regcomp(&sdt_op_regex1, SDT_OP_REGEX1, REG_EXTENDED);
+	if (ret)
+		goto error;
+	initialized = 1;
+
+	ret = regcomp(&sdt_op_regex2, SDT_OP_REGEX2, REG_EXTENDED);
+	if (ret)
+		goto free_regex1;
+	initialized = 2;
+
+	return 0;
+
+free_regex1:
+	regfree(&sdt_op_regex1);
+error:
+	pr_debug4("Regex compilation error, initialized %d\n", initialized);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Parse OP and convert it into uprobe format, which is, +/-NUM(%gprREG).
+ * Possible variants of OP are:
+ *	Format		Example
+ *	-------------------------
+ *	NUM(%rREG)	48(%r1)
+ *	-NUM(%rREG)	-48(%r1)
+ *	%rREG		%r1
+ */
+int __perf_sdt_arg_parse_op_s390(char *old_op, char **new_op)
+{
+	int ret, new_len;
+	regmatch_t rm[6];
+	unsigned long i;
+
+	*new_op = NULL;
+	ret = sdt_init_op_regex();
+	if (ret)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (!regexec(&sdt_op_regex1, old_op, 3, rm, 0)) {
+		/* Extract %rX */
+		new_len = 2;    /* % NULL */
+		new_len += (int)(rm[1].rm_eo - rm[1].rm_so);
+		*new_op = zalloc(new_len);
+		if (!*new_op)
+			return -ENOMEM;
+
+		scnprintf(*new_op, new_len, "%.*s",
+			  (int)(rm[1].rm_eo - rm[1].rm_so), old_op + rm[1].rm_so);
+	} else if (!regexec(&sdt_op_regex2, old_op, ARRAY_SIZE(rm), rm, 0)) {
+		/* Extract #(%rX) */
+		new_len = 4;    /* (%)NULL */
+		for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE(rm) && rm[i].rm_so != -1; ++i)
+			new_len += (int)(rm[i].rm_eo - rm[i].rm_so);
+		*new_op = zalloc(new_len);
+		if (!*new_op)
+			return -ENOMEM;
+
+		scnprintf(*new_op, new_len, "%.*s(%.*s)",
+			  (int)(rm[1].rm_eo - rm[1].rm_so), old_op + rm[1].rm_so,
+			  (int)(rm[2].rm_eo - rm[2].rm_so), old_op + rm[2].rm_so);
+	} else {
+		pr_debug4("Skipping unsupported SDT argument: %s\n", old_op);
+		return SDT_ARG_SKIP;
+	}
+
+	return SDT_ARG_VALID;
+}
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.c b/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.c
index 5b8f34beb24e..f52b0e1f7fc7 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.c
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ int perf_sdt_arg_parse_op(uint16_t e_machine, char *old_op, char **new_op)
 	case EM_X86_64:
 		ret = __perf_sdt_arg_parse_op_x86(old_op, new_op);
 		break;
+	case EM_S390:
+		ret = __perf_sdt_arg_parse_op_s390(old_op, new_op);
+		break;
 	default:
 		pr_debug("Unknown ELF machine %d, standard arguments parse will be skipped.\n",
 			 e_machine);
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h
index 7c04700bf837..573f0d1dfe04 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h
+++ b/tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ uint64_t __perf_reg_mask_s390(bool intr);
 const char *__perf_reg_name_s390(int id);
 uint64_t __perf_reg_ip_s390(void);
 uint64_t __perf_reg_sp_s390(void);
+int __perf_sdt_arg_parse_op_s390(char *old_op, char **new_op);
 
 int __perf_sdt_arg_parse_op_x86(char *old_op, char **new_op);
 uint64_t __perf_reg_mask_x86(bool intr);
-- 
2.53.0


             reply	other threads:[~2026-03-17 11:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-17 11:06 Thomas Richter [this message]
2026-03-17 15:32 ` [PATCH v3] perf record: Add support for arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() on s390 Ian Rogers
2026-03-18  1:52 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-03-18  6:27   ` Thomas Richter
2026-03-18  8:03     ` Mi, Dapeng

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=20260317110641.39975-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=tmricht@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=japo@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=sumanthk@linux.ibm.com \
    /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