From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] perf probe fixes for ppc64le
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:19:14 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57061802.7020508@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1459942081.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 06/04/16 22:32, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> This patchset fixes three issues found with perf probe on ppc64le:
> 1. 'perf test kallsyms' failure on ppc64le (reported by Michael
> Ellerman). This was due to the symbols being fixed up during symbol
> table load. This is fixed in patch 2 by delaying symbol fixup until
> later.
> 2. perf probe function offset was being calculated from the local entry
> point (LEP), which does not match user expectation when trying to look
> at function disassembly output (reported by Ananth N). This is fixed for
> kallsyms in patch 1 and for symbol table in patch 2.
I think the bit where the offset is w.r.t LEP when using a name, but w.r.t
GEP when using function+offset can be confusing. Do we really need probe
points between GEP and LEP? All the GEP does is setup r2. The use case
could be more generic, but please clarify.
> 3. perf probe failure with kretprobe when using kallsyms. This was
> failing as we were specifying an offset. This is fixed in patch 1.
>
Balbir Singh.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-07 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-06 12:32 [PATCH 0/2] perf probe fixes for ppc64le Naveen N. Rao
2016-04-06 12:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] perf/powerpc: Fix kprobe and kretprobe handling with kallsyms Naveen N. Rao
2016-04-07 4:30 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2016-04-07 6:32 ` Naveen N. Rao
2016-04-06 12:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] tools/perf: Fix kallsyms perf test on ppc64le Naveen N. Rao
2016-04-06 14:32 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2016-04-07 8:19 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2016-04-07 9:26 ` [PATCH 0/2] perf probe fixes for ppc64le Naveen N. Rao
2016-04-08 6:57 ` Balbir Singh
2016-04-09 13:42 ` Naveen N. Rao
2016-04-11 4:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-04-11 13:43 ` Naveen N. Rao
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=57061802.7020508@gmail.com \
--to=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mjw@redhat.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).