From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Alexandre Truong <alexandre.truong@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Al Grant <al.grant@arm.com>, James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
Wilco Dijkstra <wilco.dijkstra@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf tools: determine if LR is the return address
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 01:05:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210124000526.GE138414@krava> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210122161854.5289-4-alexandre.truong@arm.com>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 04:18:54PM +0000, Alexandre Truong wrote:
> On arm64 and frame pointer mode (e.g: perf record --callgraph fp),
> use dwarf unwind info to check if the link register is the return
> address in order to inject it to the frame pointer stack.
>
> Write the following application:
>
> int a = 10;
>
> void f2(void)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
> a *= a;
> }
>
> void f1()
> {
> f2();
> }
>
> int main (void)
> {
> f1();
> return 0;
> }
>
> with the following compilation flags:
> gcc -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-inline -O1
>
> The compiler omits the frame pointer for f2 on arm. This is a problem
> with any leaf call, for example an application with many different
> calls to malloc() would always omit the calling frame, even if it
> can be determined.
>
> ./perf record --call-graph fp ./a.out
> ./perf report
>
> currently gives the following stack:
>
> 0xffffea52f361
> _start
> __libc_start_main
> main
> f2
reproduced on x86 as well
> +static bool get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(struct perf_sample *sample)
> +{
> + return callchain_param.record_mode != CALLCHAIN_FP || !sample->user_regs.regs
> + || sample->user_regs.mask != PERF_REGS_MASK;
> +}
> +
> +static int add_entry(struct unwind_entry *entry, void *arg)
> +{
> + struct entries *entries = arg;
> +
> + entries->stack[entries->i++] = entry->ip;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread)
> +{
> + u64 leaf_frame;
> + struct entries entries = {{0, 0}, 0};
> +
> + if (get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(sample))
the name suggest you'd want to continue if it's true
> + return 0;
> +
> + unwind__get_entries(add_entry, &entries, thread, sample, 2);
I'm scratching my head how this unwinds anything, you enabled just
registers, not the stack right? so the unwind code would do just
IP -> LR + 1 shift?
thanks,
jirka
> + leaf_frame = callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLER ?
> + entries.stack[0] : entries.stack[1];
> +
> + if (leaf_frame + 1 == sample->user_regs.regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_LR])
> + return sample->user_regs.regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_LR];
> + return 0;
> +}
SNIP
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-24 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-22 16:18 [PATCH 1/4] perf tools: record aarch64 registers automatically Alexandre Truong
2021-01-22 16:18 ` [PATCH 2/4] perf tools: add a mechanism to inject stack frames Alexandre Truong
2021-01-22 16:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] perf tools: enable dwarf_callchain_users on arm64 Alexandre Truong
2021-01-22 16:18 ` [PATCH 4/4] perf tools: determine if LR is the return address Alexandre Truong
2021-01-24 0:05 ` Jiri Olsa [this message]
2021-01-25 9:39 ` James Clark
2021-02-08 15:39 ` James Clark
2021-02-10 12:05 ` Alexandre Truong
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=20210124000526.GE138414@krava \
--to=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=al.grant@arm.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexandre.truong@arm.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=james.clark@arm.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=leo.yan@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shikemeng@huawei.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=wilco.dijkstra@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yao.jin@linux.intel.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