From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lizefan@huawei.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix building error in x86_64 when dwarf unwind is on
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:09:20 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150108050920.GA7268@sejong> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54ADDDAF.8060704@huawei.com>
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:30:23AM +0800, Wang Nan wrote:
> On 2015/1/7 21:50, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015/1/7 16:39, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 02:40:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> >>>> index 67a03a825b3c..eb3e2f3e14b4 100644
> >>>> --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> >>>> +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> >>>> @@ -462,10 +462,12 @@ BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)builtin-bench.o
> >>>> # Benchmark modules
> >>>> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-messaging.o
> >>>> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-pipe.o
> >>>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
> >>>> ifeq ($(RAW_ARCH),x86_64)
> >>>> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memcpy-x86-64-asm.o
> >>>> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memset-x86-64-asm.o
> >>>> endif
> >>>> +endif
> >>>
> >>> isn't the check for x86 superfluous here? the x86_64 check is stronger
> >>>
> >>> otherwise it looks ok to me.. Wang Nan, could you please check
> >>> if it fixes the issue for you?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry, although Namhyung Kim's patch solves my ARCH=x86 problem, it breaks ARM building:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> | bench/../../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S: Assembler messages:
> >> | bench/../../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:27: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized character is `,'
> >> | bench/../../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:29: Error: bad instruction `movq %rdi,%rax'
> >> | bench/../../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:30: Error: bad instruction `movq %rdx,%rcx'
> >> | bench/../../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:31: Error: bad instruction `shrq $3,%rcx'
> >> | bench/../../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:32: Error: bad instruction `andl $7,%edx'
> >> ...
> >
> > Strange.. this code is included only if ARCH=x86 in config/Makefile:
> >
> > # Additional ARCH settings for x86
> > ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
> > ifeq (${IS_64_BIT}, 1)
> > CFLAGS += -DHAVE_ARCH_X86_64_SUPPORT
> > ARCH_INCLUDE = ../../arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S ../../arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S
> > LIBUNWIND_LIBS = -lunwind -lunwind-x86_64
> > else
> > LIBUNWIND_LIBS = -lunwind -lunwind-x86
> > endif
> > NO_PERF_REGS := 0
> > endif
> >
> > Did your original patch build it without a problem?
> >
>
> My original patch is free from this problem.
>
> bench/mem-memset-x86-64-asm.S doesn't use ARCH_INCLUDE, it direct include "../../../arch/x86/lib/memset_64.S".
Ah, got it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> It builds x86_64 bench when I corss compiling perf for arm (use ARCH=arm). This is caused by Makefile.perf:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-pipe.o
> >> ifeq ($(RAW_ARCH),x86_64)
> >> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memcpy-x86-64-asm.o
> >> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memset-x86-64-asm.o
> >> endif
> >> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memcpy.o
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Which rely on RAW_ARCH, but RAW_ARCH is not a cross-compiling-friendly variable now.
> >
> > That's why I added the extra ARCH check.
> >
>
> With your additional ARCH check, ARM compiling is passed. However I suggest you not to
> use $(RAW_ARCH) directly, because it is get from "uname -m", which reflects the arch of
> build machine, not the arch of host machine (the machine perf will run on).
>
> What about this:
>
> ---
> diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> index 67a03a82..1f71a32 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf
> @@ -462,10 +462,12 @@ BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)builtin-bench.o
> # Benchmark modules
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-messaging.o
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-pipe.o
> -ifeq ($(RAW_ARCH),x86_64)
> +ifeq ($(ARCH), x86)
> +ifeq ($(IS_64_BIT), 1)
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memcpy-x86-64-asm.o
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memset-x86-64-asm.o
> endif
> +endif
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memcpy.o
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/futex-hash.o
> BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/futex-wake.o
Looks good to me!
Thanks,
Namhyung
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-08 5:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-27 1:26 [PATCH] perf: fix building error in x86_64 when dwarf unwind is on Wang Nan
2014-12-29 7:56 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-12-29 8:14 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-07 2:53 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-07 5:40 ` Namhyung Kim
2015-01-07 8:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-01-07 12:28 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-07 13:50 ` Namhyung Kim
2015-01-08 1:30 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-08 5:09 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2015-01-09 14:43 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-01-12 2:20 ` Wang Nan
2015-01-12 3:28 ` Namhyung Kim
2015-01-12 10:36 ` Jiri Olsa
2015-01-17 10:10 ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf tools: Fix " tip-bot for Namhyung Kim
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-02-03 19:58 [PATCH] perf: fix " Christopher Covington
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=20150108050920.GA7268@sejong \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=wangnan0@huawei.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).