Re: [PATCH 05/15 V3] perf, c2c: Rework setup code to prepare for features

[Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:12:32AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:11:07 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:41:29PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:10:18 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 03:36:56PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> >> >
> >> > SNIP
> >> >
> >> >>  
> >> >>  static int perf_c2c__process_load_store(struct perf_c2c *c2c,
> >> >> +					struct addr_location *al,
> >> >>  					struct perf_sample *sample,
> >> >> -					struct addr_location *al)
> >> >> +					struct perf_evsel *evsel)
> >> >>  {
> >> >> -	if (c2c->raw_records)
> >> >> -		perf_sample__fprintf(sample, ' ', "raw input", al, stdout);
> >> >> +	struct mem_info *mi;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +	mi = sample__resolve_mem(sample, al);
> >> >> +	if (!mi)
> >> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> >
> >> > perhaps not directly related to this patchset, but I needed
> >> > attached patch to get resolved data in .bss (static), which
> >> > for some reason happened to be located in executable segment
> >> 
> >> Wasn't it a read-only/const data?
> >
> > I believe it had the 'x' bit set.  Or the kernel was not passing any
> > protection bits, so it defaulted to MAP_FUNCTION?
> 
> The perf treats a mapping as a data mapping (MAP_VARIABLE) by default if
> the 'x' bit is not set.  As Jiri said its a static data, I guessed it's
> a const data (set to 0?) and moved into .rodata section and then to the
> text segment.

Unfortunately, his patch will be needed eventually, if not for his reason,
I had a java JAR file example that was pulling data addresses out of a
shared memory region with the protection bits set to 'rwx' (in the
/proc/<pid>/maps area).  I was losing lots of samples until I came up with
a more complicated hack.

I will try to dig up my example, so you can see, so it doesn't sound like
I am making this up. :-)

Cheers,
Don