Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf evsel: Don't configure framepointer callchains on s390

Namhyung Kim
2026-03-12T18:00:12Z

Hello,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 09:46:54AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 8:54 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 5:45 AM Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/12/26 07:16, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > Frame pointer callchains are not supported on s390. Ignore the option
> > > > and print a warning.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v2: Only disable user callchains as AI is telling me native "kernel"
> > > > callchains are supported on s390.
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 6 ++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > > > index bd14d9bbc91f..fa21b48cba86 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > > > @@ -1076,6 +1076,12 @@ static void __evsel__config_callchain(struct evsel *evsel, struct record_opts *o
> > > > attr->exclude_callchain_user = 1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + if (EM_HOST == EM_S390 && (evsel->core.attr.sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN) &&
> > > > + !evsel->core.attr.exclude_callchain_user) {
> > > > + pr_warning("Excluding user callchains that are not supported on s390. Try '--call-graph dwarf'\n");
> > > > + evsel->core.attr.exclude_callchain_user = 1;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > if (param->defer && !attr->exclude_callchain_user)
> > > > attr->defer_callchain = 1;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Ian, thanks very much.
> > > Your patch set helps a lot. However there is a small nit (which is mandatory). Please add these lines
> > >
> > > evsel->core.attr.sample_type &= ~PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN;
> > > evsel->core.attr.sample_type &= ~PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_USER;
> > > evsel->core.attr.sample_type &= ~PERF_SAMPLE_STACK_USER;
> >
> > So these lines are dropping callchain from the sample_type which means
> > the kernel stack won't be sampled. AI was telling me this worked, but
> > I'm guess it was wrong. I think rather than this it is just cleaner
> > never to set the bits in the perf_event_attr, more like what v1 of the
> > patch did:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260312031928.1494864-3-irogers@google.com/
> >
> > > to the new if(EM_HOST == ...) above.
> > > The s390 CPU Measurement sampling device driver does not check on the attr.core.exclude_callchain_user
> > > member, but on the sample_type bit mask. It returns -EOPNOTSUPP when this bit PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN
> > > is set. This solves the invocation with command line flag -g as in
> > > # ./perf record -v -e cycles -g -- perf test -w noploop
> > > ...
> > > perf record: Captured and wrote 0.183 MB perf.data ]
> >
> > Right because the callchain was removed from all the samples. We can't
> > fix old kernels (other than by using fix tags); is there a possibility
> > of adding the exclude_callchain_user to the s390 perf driver for the
> > sake of kernel callchains? It seems better than providing no
> > callchain.
> >
> > > Also I discovered that the fallback when using --call-graph dwarf command line flag still fails:
> > > # ./perf record -v -e cycles --call-graph dwarf -- perf test -w noploop
> > > ...
> > > Warning:
> > > Trying to fall back to excluding guest samples
> > > Error:
> > > Failure to open event 'cycles:H' on PMU 'cpum_cf' which will be removed.
> > > cycles:H: PMU Hardware doesn't support sampling overflow-interrupts. Try 'perf stat'
> > > Error:
> > > Failure to open any events for recording.
> > >
> > > The reason is in __evsel__config_callchain() which calls evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, CALLCHAIN)
> > > and sets the PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN bit in evsel->core.attr.sample_type. It also sets the
> > > member attr->exclude_callchain_user = 1 and sets bits REGS_USER and _STACK_USER.
> > > All three bits are not supported by s390.
> >
> > I'm confused by this and your previous testing that showed the
> > `--call-graph dwarf` worked. You need the sampled registers for dwarf
> > unwinding to provide initial register values for the unwinder.
> >
> > > I have modified your 2nd patch and appended it.
> > >
> > > I find all these bits in sample_type and the attr.exclude_XXX stuff very confusing. If there
> > > is a more consistant way of checking these feature, please let me know.
>
> I forgot to mention, yeah the exclude thing is maddening. It takes
> about 100 lines to convert the command line modifiers to those in the
> perf_event_attr, there's a priority to them, and so on:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/parse-events.c#n1759
> Fwiw, I was thinking for patch 1 of holding onto the parsed modifiers
> so that we could reset the excludes based on them when switching to
> the software event.
>
> > Ok, let me check it out.
>
> So looking at the cpum_cf driver it fails events for having sampling enabled:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_cf.c#n859
> ```
> if (is_sampling_event(event)) /* No sampling support */
> ```
> and the cpum_sf driver fails for any kind of callchain:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c#n839
> ```
> static bool is_callchain_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> u64 sample_type = event->attr.sample_type;
>
> return sample_type & (PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN | PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_USER |
> PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_INTR | PERF_SAMPLE_STACK_USER);
> }
>
> static int cpumsf_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> int err;
>
> /* No support for taken branch sampling */
> /* No support for callchain, stacks and registers */
> if (has_branch_stack(event) || is_callchain_event(event))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> ```
> Perhaps there is an oversight in the cpum_cf driver wrt branch stacks
> (LBR on x86). The PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN bit is set for perf call-graph
> options currently:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/util/evsel.c#n1024
>
> I think cpum_sf is the PMU we care about for the default cycles event?
> Since callchains of any flavor don't work with cpum_sf we can do a few
> things:
> 1) Disable the callchain and allow hardware sampling to continue,
> 2) Switch to a software event like cpu-clock,
> 3) Fail for the callchain option with this PMU, which is currently
> happening anyway.

I'm confused. Is it failing to open any events with callchains or just
events from cpum_sf PMU (with callchains)?

Thanks,
Namhyung

>
> I dislike option 3 because it requires special s390 logic for many
> tests, and we lose testing coverage of hardware events. Option 1 is a
> smaller patch, an early return in __evsel__config_callchain if on
> s390. Option 2 feels most like what the user would want given they
> asked for a callchain. We could change evlist__new_default to take a
> "with callchain" boolean and on s390 that could switch the event to a
> software one. Only two non-test callers use evlist__new__default
> (record and top), so it isn't a huge change.
>
> Wdyt Thomas, option 1 or 2?
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
> > > Thanks again for looking into this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian
> >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Richter, Dept 3303, IBM s390 Linux Development, Boeblingen, Germany
> > > --
> > > IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
> > >
> > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Wolfgang Wendt
> > >
> > > Geschäftsführung: David Faller
> > >
> > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294