* [PATCH] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
@ 2022-05-09 11:47 Chengdong Li
2022-05-09 13:45 ` Jiri Olsa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chengdong Li @ 2022-05-09 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: alexey.v.bayduraev, peterz, mingo, acme, mark.rutland,
alexander.shishkin, jolsa, namhyung, rickyman7, adrian.hunter,
irogers, german.gomez, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel
Cc: ak, likexu, chengdongli
From: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
when generating callstack information from branch_stack(Intel LBR),
the actual number of callstack entry should be bigger than the number
of branch_stack, for example:
branch_stack records:
B() -> C()
A() -> B()
converted callstack records should be:
C()
B()
A()
though, the number of callstack equals
to the number of branch stack plus 1.
This patch fix above issue in branch_stack__printf(). For example,
# echo 'scale=2000; 4*a(1)' > cmd
# perf record --call-graph lbr bc -l < cmd
Before applying this patch, `perf script -D` output:
1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
... LBR call chain: nr:8
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a410
..... 2: 000000000040573c
..... 3: 0000000000408650
..... 4: 00000000004022f2
..... 5: 00000000004015f5
..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 7: 0000000000401698
... FP chain: nr:2
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
... branch callstack: nr:6 # which is not consistent with LBR records.
..... 0: 000000000040a410
..... 1: 0000000000408650 # ditto
..... 2: 00000000004022f2
..... 3: 00000000004015f5
..... 4: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 5: 0000000000401698
... thread: bc:17990
...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
After applied:
1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
... LBR call chain: nr:8
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a410
..... 2: 000000000040573c
..... 3: 0000000000408650
..... 4: 00000000004022f2
..... 5: 00000000004015f5
..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 7: 0000000000401698
... FP chain: nr:2
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
... branch callstack: nr:7
..... 0: 000000000040a410
..... 1: 000000000040573c
..... 2: 0000000000408650
..... 3: 00000000004022f2
..... 4: 00000000004015f5
..... 5: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 6: 0000000000401698
... thread: bc:17990
...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
---
tools/perf/util/session.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
index f9a320694b85..568a1db98686 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
@@ -1151,9 +1151,19 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
struct branch_entry *entries = perf_sample__branch_entries(sample);
uint64_t i;
- printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n",
- !callstack ? "... branch stack" : "... branch callstack",
- sample->branch_stack->nr);
+ if (!callstack)
+ printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch stack", sample->branch_stack->nr);
+ else
+ /* the reason of adding 1 to nr is because after expanding
+ * branch stack it generates nr + 1 callstack records. e.g.,
+ * B()->C()
+ * A()->B()
+ * the final callstack should be:
+ * C()
+ * B()
+ * A()
+ */
+ printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch callstack", sample->branch_stack->nr+1);
for (i = 0; i < sample->branch_stack->nr; i++) {
struct branch_entry *e = &entries[i];
@@ -1169,8 +1179,12 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
(unsigned)e->flags.reserved,
e->flags.type ? branch_type_name(e->flags.type) : "");
} else {
- printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
- i, i > 0 ? e->from : e->to);
+ if (i == 0)
+ printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n"
+ "..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
+ i, e->to, i+1, e->from);
+ else
+ printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n", i+1, e->from);
}
}
}
--
2.27.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
2022-05-09 11:47 [PATCH] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message Chengdong Li
@ 2022-05-09 13:45 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-05-10 0:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Chengdong Li
2022-05-17 1:57 ` [RESEND PATCH " Chengdong Li
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Olsa @ 2022-05-09 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengdong Li
Cc: alexey.v.bayduraev, peterz, mingo, acme, mark.rutland,
alexander.shishkin, jolsa, namhyung, rickyman7, adrian.hunter,
irogers, german.gomez, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, ak, likexu,
chengdongli
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 07:47:43PM +0800, Chengdong Li wrote:
> From: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
>
> when generating callstack information from branch_stack(Intel LBR),
> the actual number of callstack entry should be bigger than the number
> of branch_stack, for example:
>
> branch_stack records:
> B() -> C()
> A() -> B()
> converted callstack records should be:
> C()
> B()
> A()
> though, the number of callstack equals
> to the number of branch stack plus 1.
>
> This patch fix above issue in branch_stack__printf(). For example,
>
> # echo 'scale=2000; 4*a(1)' > cmd
> # perf record --call-graph lbr bc -l < cmd
>
> Before applying this patch, `perf script -D` output:
>
> 1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
> ... LBR call chain: nr:8
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a410
> ..... 2: 000000000040573c
> ..... 3: 0000000000408650
> ..... 4: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 5: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 7: 0000000000401698
> ... FP chain: nr:2
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
> ... branch callstack: nr:6 # which is not consistent with LBR records.
> ..... 0: 000000000040a410
> ..... 1: 0000000000408650 # ditto
> ..... 2: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 3: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 4: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 5: 0000000000401698
> ... thread: bc:17990
> ...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
> bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
> 40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> 401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
>
> After applied:
>
> 1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
> ... LBR call chain: nr:8
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a410
> ..... 2: 000000000040573c
> ..... 3: 0000000000408650
> ..... 4: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 5: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 7: 0000000000401698
> ... FP chain: nr:2
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
> ... branch callstack: nr:7
> ..... 0: 000000000040a410
> ..... 1: 000000000040573c
> ..... 2: 0000000000408650
> ..... 3: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 4: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 5: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 6: 0000000000401698
> ... thread: bc:17990
> ...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
> bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
> 40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> 401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/session.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> index f9a320694b85..568a1db98686 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> @@ -1151,9 +1151,19 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> struct branch_entry *entries = perf_sample__branch_entries(sample);
> uint64_t i;
>
> - printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n",
> - !callstack ? "... branch stack" : "... branch callstack",
> - sample->branch_stack->nr);
> + if (!callstack)
> + printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch stack", sample->branch_stack->nr);
> + else
> + /* the reason of adding 1 to nr is because after expanding
> + * branch stack it generates nr + 1 callstack records. e.g.,
> + * B()->C()
> + * A()->B()
> + * the final callstack should be:
> + * C()
> + * B()
> + * A()
> + */
> + printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch callstack", sample->branch_stack->nr+1);
please use { }
>
> for (i = 0; i < sample->branch_stack->nr; i++) {
> struct branch_entry *e = &entries[i];
> @@ -1169,8 +1179,12 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> (unsigned)e->flags.reserved,
> e->flags.type ? branch_type_name(e->flags.type) : "");
> } else {
> - printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
> - i, i > 0 ? e->from : e->to);
> + if (i == 0)
> + printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n"
> + "..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
> + i, e->to, i+1, e->from);
> + else
> + printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n", i+1, e->from);
same here
thanks,
jirka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH v2] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
2022-05-09 13:45 ` Jiri Olsa
@ 2022-05-10 0:40 ` Chengdong Li
2022-05-11 1:35 ` Bryton Lee
2022-05-17 1:57 ` [RESEND PATCH " Chengdong Li
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chengdong Li @ 2022-05-10 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: alexey.v.bayduraev, peterz, mingo, acme, mark.rutland,
alexander.shishkin, jolsa, namhyung, rickyman7, adrian.hunter,
irogers, german.gomez, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel
Cc: ak, likexu, chengdongli
From: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
when generating callstack information from branch_stack(Intel LBR),
the actual number of callstack entry should be bigger than the number
of branch_stack, for example:
branch_stack records:
B() -> C()
A() -> B()
converted callstack records should be:
C()
B()
A()
though, the number of callstack equals
to the number of branch stack plus 1.
This patch fixes above issue in branch_stack__printf(). For example,
# echo 'scale=2000; 4*a(1)' > cmd
# perf record --call-graph lbr bc -l < cmd
Before applying this patch, `perf script -D` output:
1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
... LBR call chain: nr:8
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a410
..... 2: 000000000040573c
..... 3: 0000000000408650
..... 4: 00000000004022f2
..... 5: 00000000004015f5
..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 7: 0000000000401698
... FP chain: nr:2
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
... branch callstack: nr:6 # which is not consistent with LBR records.
..... 0: 000000000040a410
..... 1: 0000000000408650 # ditto
..... 2: 00000000004022f2
..... 3: 00000000004015f5
..... 4: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 5: 0000000000401698
... thread: bc:17990
...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
After applied:
1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
... LBR call chain: nr:8
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a410
..... 2: 000000000040573c
..... 3: 0000000000408650
..... 4: 00000000004022f2
..... 5: 00000000004015f5
..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 7: 0000000000401698
... FP chain: nr:2
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
... branch callstack: nr:7
..... 0: 000000000040a410
..... 1: 000000000040573c
..... 2: 0000000000408650
..... 3: 00000000004022f2
..... 4: 00000000004015f5
..... 5: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 6: 0000000000401698
... thread: bc:17990
...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
Change from v1:
- refined code style according to Jiri's review comments.
Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
---
tools/perf/util/session.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
index f9a320694b85..a7f93f5a1ac8 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
@@ -1151,9 +1151,20 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
struct branch_entry *entries = perf_sample__branch_entries(sample);
uint64_t i;
- printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n",
- !callstack ? "... branch stack" : "... branch callstack",
- sample->branch_stack->nr);
+ if (!callstack) {
+ printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch stack", sample->branch_stack->nr);
+ } else {
+ /* the reason of adding 1 to nr is because after expanding
+ * branch stack it generates nr + 1 callstack records. e.g.,
+ * B()->C()
+ * A()->B()
+ * the final callstack should be:
+ * C()
+ * B()
+ * A()
+ */
+ printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch callstack", sample->branch_stack->nr+1);
+ }
for (i = 0; i < sample->branch_stack->nr; i++) {
struct branch_entry *e = &entries[i];
@@ -1169,8 +1180,13 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
(unsigned)e->flags.reserved,
e->flags.type ? branch_type_name(e->flags.type) : "");
} else {
- printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
- i, i > 0 ? e->from : e->to);
+ if (i == 0) {
+ printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n"
+ "..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
+ i, e->to, i+1, e->from);
+ } else {
+ printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n", i+1, e->from);
+ }
}
}
}
--
2.27.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
2022-05-10 0:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Chengdong Li
@ 2022-05-11 1:35 ` Bryton Lee
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Bryton Lee @ 2022-05-11 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jolsa, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel
Cc: ak, likexu, chengdongli, mark.rutland, mingo,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Adrian Hunter, alexander.shishkin,
irogers, german.gomez, rickyman7, Namhyung Kim, peterz,
alexey.v.bayduraev
Hi Jiri,
Could you kindly review my patch again? I sent out my updates
yesterday. I am happy to know your guidance.
Thanks,
Chengdong
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:41 AM Chengdong Li <brytonlee01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
>
> when generating callstack information from branch_stack(Intel LBR),
> the actual number of callstack entry should be bigger than the number
> of branch_stack, for example:
>
> branch_stack records:
> B() -> C()
> A() -> B()
> converted callstack records should be:
> C()
> B()
> A()
> though, the number of callstack equals
> to the number of branch stack plus 1.
>
> This patch fixes above issue in branch_stack__printf(). For example,
>
> # echo 'scale=2000; 4*a(1)' > cmd
> # perf record --call-graph lbr bc -l < cmd
>
> Before applying this patch, `perf script -D` output:
>
> 1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
> ... LBR call chain: nr:8
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a410
> ..... 2: 000000000040573c
> ..... 3: 0000000000408650
> ..... 4: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 5: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 7: 0000000000401698
> ... FP chain: nr:2
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
> ... branch callstack: nr:6 # which is not consistent with LBR records.
> ..... 0: 000000000040a410
> ..... 1: 0000000000408650 # ditto
> ..... 2: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 3: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 4: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 5: 0000000000401698
> ... thread: bc:17990
> ...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
> bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
> 40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> 401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
>
> After applied:
>
> 1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
> ... LBR call chain: nr:8
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a410
> ..... 2: 000000000040573c
> ..... 3: 0000000000408650
> ..... 4: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 5: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 7: 0000000000401698
> ... FP chain: nr:2
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
> ... branch callstack: nr:7
> ..... 0: 000000000040a410
> ..... 1: 000000000040573c
> ..... 2: 0000000000408650
> ..... 3: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 4: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 5: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 6: 0000000000401698
> ... thread: bc:17990
> ...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
> bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
> 40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> 401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
>
> Change from v1:
> - refined code style according to Jiri's review comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/session.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> index f9a320694b85..a7f93f5a1ac8 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> @@ -1151,9 +1151,20 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> struct branch_entry *entries = perf_sample__branch_entries(sample);
> uint64_t i;
>
> - printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n",
> - !callstack ? "... branch stack" : "... branch callstack",
> - sample->branch_stack->nr);
> + if (!callstack) {
> + printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch stack", sample->branch_stack->nr);
> + } else {
> + /* the reason of adding 1 to nr is because after expanding
> + * branch stack it generates nr + 1 callstack records. e.g.,
> + * B()->C()
> + * A()->B()
> + * the final callstack should be:
> + * C()
> + * B()
> + * A()
> + */
> + printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch callstack", sample->branch_stack->nr+1);
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < sample->branch_stack->nr; i++) {
> struct branch_entry *e = &entries[i];
> @@ -1169,8 +1180,13 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> (unsigned)e->flags.reserved,
> e->flags.type ? branch_type_name(e->flags.type) : "");
> } else {
> - printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
> - i, i > 0 ? e->from : e->to);
> + if (i == 0) {
> + printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n"
> + "..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
> + i, e->to, i+1, e->from);
> + } else {
> + printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n", i+1, e->from);
> + }
> }
> }
> }
> --
> 2.27.0
>
--
Best Regards
Bryton.Lee
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [RESEND PATCH v2] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
2022-05-09 13:45 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-05-10 0:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Chengdong Li
@ 2022-05-17 1:57 ` Chengdong Li
2022-05-17 23:14 ` Namhyung Kim
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chengdong Li @ 2022-05-17 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: alexey.v.bayduraev, peterz, mingo, acme, mark.rutland,
alexander.shishkin, jolsa, namhyung, rickyman7, adrian.hunter,
irogers, german.gomez, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel
Cc: ak, likexu, chengdongli
From: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
when generating callstack information from branch_stack(Intel LBR),
the actual number of callstack entry should be bigger than the number
of branch_stack, for example:
branch_stack records:
B() -> C()
A() -> B()
converted callstack records should be:
C()
B()
A()
though, the number of callstack equals
to the number of branch stack plus 1.
This patch fixes above issue in branch_stack__printf(). For example,
# echo 'scale=2000; 4*a(1)' > cmd
# perf record --call-graph lbr bc -l < cmd
Before applying this patch, `perf script -D` output:
1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
... LBR call chain: nr:8
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a410
..... 2: 000000000040573c
..... 3: 0000000000408650
..... 4: 00000000004022f2
..... 5: 00000000004015f5
..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 7: 0000000000401698
... FP chain: nr:2
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
... branch callstack: nr:6 # which is not consistent with LBR records.
..... 0: 000000000040a410
..... 1: 0000000000408650 # ditto
..... 2: 00000000004022f2
..... 3: 00000000004015f5
..... 4: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 5: 0000000000401698
... thread: bc:17990
...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
After applied:
1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
... LBR call chain: nr:8
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a410
..... 2: 000000000040573c
..... 3: 0000000000408650
..... 4: 00000000004022f2
..... 5: 00000000004015f5
..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 7: 0000000000401698
... FP chain: nr:2
..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
... branch callstack: nr:7
..... 0: 000000000040a410
..... 1: 000000000040573c
..... 2: 0000000000408650
..... 3: 00000000004022f2
..... 4: 00000000004015f5
..... 5: 00007f5ed6dcb553
..... 6: 0000000000401698
... thread: bc:17990
...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
Change from v1:
- refined code style according to Jiri's review comments.
Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
---
tools/perf/util/session.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
index f9a320694b85..a7f93f5a1ac8 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
@@ -1151,9 +1151,20 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
struct branch_entry *entries = perf_sample__branch_entries(sample);
uint64_t i;
- printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n",
- !callstack ? "... branch stack" : "... branch callstack",
- sample->branch_stack->nr);
+ if (!callstack) {
+ printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch stack", sample->branch_stack->nr);
+ } else {
+ /* the reason of adding 1 to nr is because after expanding
+ * branch stack it generates nr + 1 callstack records. e.g.,
+ * B()->C()
+ * A()->B()
+ * the final callstack should be:
+ * C()
+ * B()
+ * A()
+ */
+ printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch callstack", sample->branch_stack->nr+1);
+ }
for (i = 0; i < sample->branch_stack->nr; i++) {
struct branch_entry *e = &entries[i];
@@ -1169,8 +1180,13 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
(unsigned)e->flags.reserved,
e->flags.type ? branch_type_name(e->flags.type) : "");
} else {
- printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
- i, i > 0 ? e->from : e->to);
+ if (i == 0) {
+ printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n"
+ "..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
+ i, e->to, i+1, e->from);
+ } else {
+ printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n", i+1, e->from);
+ }
}
}
}
--
2.27.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
2022-05-17 1:57 ` [RESEND PATCH " Chengdong Li
@ 2022-05-17 23:14 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-05-21 17:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2022-05-17 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengdong Li
Cc: Alexey Bayduraev, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Mark Rutland, Alexander Shishkin,
Jiri Olsa, Riccardo Mancini, Adrian Hunter, Ian Rogers,
German Gomez, linux-perf-users, linux-kernel, Andi Kleen, likexu,
chengdongli
Hello,
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:57 PM Chengdong Li <brytonlee01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
>
> when generating callstack information from branch_stack(Intel LBR),
> the actual number of callstack entry should be bigger than the number
> of branch_stack, for example:
>
> branch_stack records:
> B() -> C()
> A() -> B()
> converted callstack records should be:
> C()
> B()
> A()
> though, the number of callstack equals
> to the number of branch stack plus 1.
>
> This patch fixes above issue in branch_stack__printf(). For example,
>
> # echo 'scale=2000; 4*a(1)' > cmd
> # perf record --call-graph lbr bc -l < cmd
>
> Before applying this patch, `perf script -D` output:
>
> 1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
> ... LBR call chain: nr:8
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a410
> ..... 2: 000000000040573c
> ..... 3: 0000000000408650
> ..... 4: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 5: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 7: 0000000000401698
> ... FP chain: nr:2
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
> ... branch callstack: nr:6 # which is not consistent with LBR records.
> ..... 0: 000000000040a410
> ..... 1: 0000000000408650 # ditto
> ..... 2: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 3: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 4: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 5: 0000000000401698
> ... thread: bc:17990
> ...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
> bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
> 40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> 401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
>
> After applied:
>
> 1220022677386876 0x2a40 [0xd8]: PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE(IP, 0x4002): 17990/17990: 0x40a6d6 period: 894172 addr: 0
> ... LBR call chain: nr:8
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a410
> ..... 2: 000000000040573c
> ..... 3: 0000000000408650
> ..... 4: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 5: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 6: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 7: 0000000000401698
> ... FP chain: nr:2
> ..... 0: fffffffffffffe00
> ..... 1: 000000000040a6d8
> ... branch callstack: nr:7
> ..... 0: 000000000040a410
> ..... 1: 000000000040573c
> ..... 2: 0000000000408650
> ..... 3: 00000000004022f2
> ..... 4: 00000000004015f5
> ..... 5: 00007f5ed6dcb553
> ..... 6: 0000000000401698
> ... thread: bc:17990
> ...... dso: /usr/bin/bc
> bc 17990 1220022.677386: 894172 cycles:
> 40a410 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 40573c [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 408650 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4022f2 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 4015f5 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
> 7f5ed6dcb553 __libc_start_main+0xf3 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so)
> 401698 [unknown] (/usr/bin/bc)
>
> Change from v1:
> - refined code style according to Jiri's review comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Namhyung
> ---
> tools/perf/util/session.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> index f9a320694b85..a7f93f5a1ac8 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> @@ -1151,9 +1151,20 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> struct branch_entry *entries = perf_sample__branch_entries(sample);
> uint64_t i;
>
> - printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n",
> - !callstack ? "... branch stack" : "... branch callstack",
> - sample->branch_stack->nr);
> + if (!callstack) {
> + printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch stack", sample->branch_stack->nr);
> + } else {
> + /* the reason of adding 1 to nr is because after expanding
> + * branch stack it generates nr + 1 callstack records. e.g.,
> + * B()->C()
> + * A()->B()
> + * the final callstack should be:
> + * C()
> + * B()
> + * A()
> + */
> + printf("%s: nr:%" PRIu64 "\n", "... branch callstack", sample->branch_stack->nr+1);
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < sample->branch_stack->nr; i++) {
> struct branch_entry *e = &entries[i];
> @@ -1169,8 +1180,13 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> (unsigned)e->flags.reserved,
> e->flags.type ? branch_type_name(e->flags.type) : "");
> } else {
> - printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
> - i, i > 0 ? e->from : e->to);
> + if (i == 0) {
> + printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n"
> + "..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n",
> + i, e->to, i+1, e->from);
> + } else {
> + printf("..... %2"PRIu64": %016" PRIx64 "\n", i+1, e->from);
> + }
> }
> }
> }
> --
> 2.27.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message
2022-05-17 23:14 ` Namhyung Kim
@ 2022-05-21 17:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2022-05-21 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Namhyung Kim
Cc: Chengdong Li, Alexey Bayduraev, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar,
Mark Rutland, Alexander Shishkin, Jiri Olsa, Riccardo Mancini,
Adrian Hunter, Ian Rogers, German Gomez, linux-perf-users,
linux-kernel, Andi Kleen, likexu, chengdongli
Em Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:14:49PM -0700, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:57 PM Chengdong Li <brytonlee01@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Chengdong Li <chengdongli@tencent.com>
>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Thanks, applied.
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-21 17:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-05-09 11:47 [PATCH] perf tools: fix callstack entries and nr print message Chengdong Li
2022-05-09 13:45 ` Jiri Olsa
2022-05-10 0:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Chengdong Li
2022-05-11 1:35 ` Bryton Lee
2022-05-17 1:57 ` [RESEND PATCH " Chengdong Li
2022-05-17 23:14 ` Namhyung Kim
2022-05-21 17:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
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).