* [PATCH v5 1/1] perf record: Add support for arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() on s390
2026-03-19 8:47 [PATCH v5 0/1] perf record: Add support for arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() on s390 Thomas Richter
@ 2026-03-19 8:47 ` Thomas Richter
2026-03-27 21:01 ` [PATCH v5 0/1] " Namhyung Kim
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Richter @ 2026-03-19 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, linux-s390, linux-perf-users, acme, namhyung,
irogers
Cc: agordeev, gor, sumanthk, hca, japo, Thomas Richter
commit e5e66adfe45a6 ("perf regs: Remove __weak attributive arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() function")
removes arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() functions and reveals missing s390 support.
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
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>
Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
---
.../perf/util/perf-regs-arch/perf_regs_s390.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
tools/perf/util/perf_regs.c | 3 +
tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 82 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..19f219225183 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 +101,75 @@ uint64_t __perf_reg_sp_s390(void)
{
return PERF_REG_S390_R15;
}
+
+/* %rXX */
+#define SDT_OP_REGEX1 "^(%r([0-9]|1[0-5]))$"
+/* +-###(%rXX) */
+#define SDT_OP_REGEX2 "^([+-]?[0-9]+\\(%r([0-9]|1[0-5])\\))$"
+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);
+ initialized = 0;
+ 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)
+ * +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];
+
+ *new_op = NULL;
+ ret = sdt_init_op_regex();
+ if (ret)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (!regexec(&sdt_op_regex1, old_op, ARRAY_SIZE(rm), rm, 0) ||
+ !regexec(&sdt_op_regex2, old_op, ARRAY_SIZE(rm), rm, 0)) {
+ new_len = 1; /* NULL byte */
+ 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 {
+ 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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v5 0/1] perf record: Add support for arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() on s390
2026-03-19 8:47 [PATCH v5 0/1] perf record: Add support for arch_sdt_arg_parse_op() on s390 Thomas Richter
2026-03-19 8:47 ` [PATCH v5 1/1] " Thomas Richter
@ 2026-03-27 21:01 ` Namhyung Kim
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2026-03-27 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, linux-s390, linux-perf-users, acme, irogers,
Thomas Richter
Cc: agordeev, gor, sumanthk, hca, japo
On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:47:53 +0100, Thomas Richter wrote:
> V5: Add comments from Ian and Sashiko:
> Moved version history to cover letter
> Added missing comment line +NUM(%rREG).
> V4: Add comments from Ian and Sashiko:
> Reset variable initialized to zero on error
> Rework regular expression and reduce to one case.
> V3: Add comments from Ian
> Print register expression without leading 'r' (wrong).
> V2: Add comments from Sumanth Koirkkar
>
> [...]
Applied to perf-tools-next, thanks!
Best regards,
Namhyung
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread