From: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:46:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3621613.kMnvz8Tm3d@milian-kdab2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59400ADD.4090709@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3243 bytes --]
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:55:09 PM CEST Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 05:14 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I see the same on very short runs. But when doing a slightly longer run,
> > even just using ls -lahR, which does some more work, then I do see user
> > backtraces. They are still missing for some of the early samples though.
> > It is as if there is a stack/memory address mismatch when the probe is
> > "too early" in ld.so.
> >
> > Could you do a test run on some program that does some more work to see
> > if you never get any user stack traces, or if you only not get them for
> > some specific probes?
>
> Thanks for checking. I tried a proper workload this time, but I still
> don't see any userspace callchain getting unwound.
>
> $ ./perf record --call-graph=dwarf -- zip -q -r temp.zip .
> [ perf record: Woken up 2891 times to write data ]
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 723.290 MB perf.data (87934 samples) ]
>
>
> With libdw:
>
> $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/ravi/elfutils-git/usr/local/lib:\
> /home/ravi/elfutils-git/usr/local/lib/elfutils/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH\
> ./perf script
>
> zip 16699 6857.354633: 37371 cycles:u:
> ecedc xmon_core
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux) 8c4fc
> __hash_page_64K (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux)
> 83450 hash_preload
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux) 7cc34
> update_mmu_cache (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux)
> 330064 alloc_set_pte
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux) 330efc do_fault
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux) 334580
> __handle_mm_fault (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux)
> 335040 handle_mm_fault
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux) 7bf94
> do_page_fault (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux)
> 7bec4 do_page_fault
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux) 7be78
> do_page_fault (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux)
> 1a4f8 handle_page_fault
> (/usr/lib/debug/lib/modules/4.11.0-3.el7.ppc64le/vmlinux)
>
> zip 16699 6857.354663: 300677 cycles:u:
>
> zip 16699 6857.354895: 584131 cycles:u:
>
> zip 16699 6857.355312: 589687 cycles:u:
>
> zip 16699 6857.355606: 560142 cycles:u:
Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch:
commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6
Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
Date: Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200
perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw
So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before
the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common
scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still
interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing
perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding.
If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing.
Cheers
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3826 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-15 8:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-01 10:24 [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-09 12:30 ` [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-12 11:58 ` Ravi Bangoria
2017-06-13 11:44 ` Mark Wielaard
2017-06-13 15:55 ` Ravi Bangoria
2017-06-15 8:46 ` Milian Wolff [this message]
2017-06-15 11:16 ` Mark Wielaard
2017-06-16 4:21 ` Ravi Bangoria
2017-06-21 1:06 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2017-06-21 1:31 ` Mark Wielaard
2017-06-21 1:07 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2017-06-21 8:16 ` Milian Wolff
2017-06-21 12:48 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2017-06-21 14:19 ` Milian Wolff
2017-06-21 14:33 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2017-06-15 12:13 ` [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc Jiri Olsa
2017-06-20 21:53 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2017-06-21 18:19 ` [tip:perf/core] perf unwind: Support " tip-bot for Paolo Bonzini
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=3621613.kMnvz8Tm3d@milian-kdab2 \
--to=milian.wolff@kdab.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=ravi.bangoria@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