Re: [PATCH v2] perf test: Make leafloop workload immune to compiler options

[James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>]

On 11/05/2026 4:38 pm, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 2:19 AM James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Since the leafloop test program was moved into the main Perf binary as a
>> workload, it inherited the same compiler options as Perf. In this case
>> the -fstack-protector option broke the assumption that simple leaf
>> frames don't have a stack frame on Arm. This causes
>> test_arm_callgraph_fp.sh to pass even if the stack isn't augmented with
>> the link register, making the test useless.
>>
>> Fix it by rewriting the leaf function in assembly seeing as it's so
>> simple. Adding -fno-stack-protector would also work, but wouldn't be
>> robust against other future compiler option additions.
>>
>> The local variables and 'a' variable were never needed so remove them to
>> simplify.
>>
>> Assisted-by: GitHub-Copilot:GPT-5.5
>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Push and pop asm sections - (Sashiko)
>> - Add .size directive - (Sashiko)
>> - Add asm label for done and test with LTO enabled - (Sashiko)
>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260508-james-perf-leafloop-stack-v1-1-637c260b2da8@linaro.org
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/tests/workloads/leafloop.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/workloads/leafloop.c b/tools/perf/tests/workloads/leafloop.c
>> index f7561767e32c..c20c75f7ba49 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/workloads/leafloop.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/workloads/leafloop.c
>> @@ -6,26 +6,48 @@
>>   #include "../tests.h"
>>
>>   /* We want to check these symbols in perf script */
>> -noinline void leaf(volatile int b);
>> -noinline void parent(volatile int b);
>> +noinline void leaf(void);
>> +noinline void parent(void);
>>
>> -static volatile int a;
>> -static volatile sig_atomic_t done;
>> +static volatile sig_atomic_t done asm("leafloop_done");
>>
>>   static void sighandler(int sig __maybe_unused)
>>   {
>>          done = 1;
>>   }
>>
>> -noinline void leaf(volatile int b)
>> +#if defined(__aarch64__)
>> +/*
>> + * Write leaf() in assembly so it stays as a minimal leaf function with no
>> + * stack frame and won't get silently broken in the future by any Perf wide
>> + * compilation options like -fstack-protector-all.
>> + */
>> +asm(
>> +       ".pushsection .text,\"ax\",%progbits\n"
>> +       ".global leaf\n"
>> +       ".type leaf, %function\n"
>> +       "leaf:\n"
>> +       "       adrp    x1, leafloop_done\n"
>> +       "       ldr     w2, [x1, #:lo12:leafloop_done]\n"
>> +       "       cbz     w2, leaf\n"
>> +       "       ret\n"
>> +       ".size leaf, .-leaf\n"
>> +       ".popsection\n"
>> +);
> 
> On reading this I thought, why can't we just use an asm block in a
> function, but I get it, you want specific function entry/exit to test
> the leaf unwinding feature.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> 
> Fwiw, looking at the test the command line is somewhat unusual:
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/shell/test_arm_callgraph_fp.sh?h=perf-tools-next#n32
> ```
> perf record -o "$PERF_DATA" --call-graph fp -e cycles//u
> --user-callchains -- $TEST_PROGRAM
> ```
> cycles//u rather than cycles:u and why the extra --user-callchains?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 

--user-callchains looks like it was to make the grep in the test easier 
so it didn't have to ignore the kernel part. But it might be redundant 
now after a later change I made.

cycles//u has always been there so there's no explanation. I thought 
that was a valid way to open an event? Is it weird because // is for 
options in perf record and not stat?

>> +
>> +#else
>> +
>> +noinline void leaf(void)
>>   {
>>          while (!done)
>> -               a += b;
>> +               ;
>>   }
>>
>> -noinline void parent(volatile int b)
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +noinline void parent(void)
>>   {
>> -       leaf(b);
>> +       leaf();
>>   }
>>
>>   static int leafloop(int argc, const char **argv)
>> @@ -39,7 +61,7 @@ static int leafloop(int argc, const char **argv)
>>          signal(SIGALRM, sighandler);
>>          alarm(sec);
>>
>> -       parent(sec);
>> +       parent();
>>          return 0;
>>   }
>>
>>
>> ---
>> base-commit: 8c8f2093614373ea8179b562320212a25cf937c0
>> change-id: 20260508-james-perf-leafloop-stack-c221600eddf2
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
>>