linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org,
	eranian@google.com, robert.richter@amd.com, fweisbec@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/11] perf, x86: use LBR for PEBS IP+1 fixup
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:11:51 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B8ED097.6090006@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1267645029.25158.106.camel@laptop>

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 13:05 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> PEBS always reports the IP+1, that is the instruction after the one
>>> that got sampled, cure this by using the LBR to reliably rewind the
>>> instruction stream.
>>
>> Hmm, does PEBS always report one byte after the end address of the
>> sampled instruction? Or the instruction which will be executed next
>> step?
> 
> The next instruction, its trap like.
> 
>> [...]
>>> +#include <asm/insn.h>
>>> +
>>> +#define MAX_INSN_SIZE	16
>>
>> Hmm, we'd better integrate these kinds of definitions into
>> asm/insn.h... (several features define it)
> 
> Agreed, I'll look at doing a patch to collect them all into asm/insn.h
> if nobody beats me to it :-)

At least kprobes doesn't :)

>>> +
>>> +static void intel_pmu_pebs_fixup_ip(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> +{
>>> +#if 0
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Borken, makes the machine expode at times trying to
>>> +	 * derefence funny userspace addresses.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Should we always fwd decode from @to, instead of trying
>>> +	 * to rewind as implemented?
>>> +	 */
>>> +
>>> +	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
>>> +	unsigned long from = cpuc->lbr_entries[0].from;
>>> +	unsigned long to = cpuc->lbr_entries[0].to;
>>
>> Ah, I see. For branch instruction case, we can use LBR to
>> find previous IP...
> 
> Right, we use the LBR to find the basic block.

Hm, that's a good idea :)

>>> +	unsigned long ip = regs->ip;
>>> +	u8 buf[2*MAX_INSN_SIZE];
>>> +	u8 *kaddr;
>>> +	int i;
>>> +
>>> +	if (from && to) {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * We sampled a branch insn, rewind using the LBR stack
>>> +		 */
>>> +		if (ip == to) {
>>> +			regs->ip = from;
>>> +			return;
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (user_mode(regs)) {
>>> +		int bytes = copy_from_user_nmi(buf,
>>> +				(void __user *)(ip - MAX_INSN_SIZE),
>>> +				2*MAX_INSN_SIZE);
>>> +
>>
>> maybe, you'd better check the source address range is within
>> the user address range. e.g. ip < MAX_INSN_SIZE. 
> 
> Not only that, I realized user_mode() checks regs->cs, which is not set
> by the PEBS code, so I added some helpers.
> 
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Try to find the longest insn ending up at the given IP
>>> +	 */
>>> +	for (i = MAX_INSN_SIZE; i > 0; i--) {
>>> +		struct insn insn;
>>> +
>>> +		kernel_insn_init(&insn, kaddr + MAX_INSN_SIZE - i);
>>> +		insn_get_length(&insn);
>>> +		if (insn.length == i) {
>>> +			regs->ip -= i;
>>> +			return;
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>>
>> Hmm, this will not work correctly on x86, since the decoder can
>> miss-decode the tail bytes of previous instruction as prefix bytes. :(
>>
>> Thus, if you want to rewind instruction stream, you need to decode
>> a function (or basic block) entirely.
> 
> Something like the below?

Great! it looks good to me.
Yeah, LBR.to may always smaller than current ip (if no one disabled LBR).

Thank you,

> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> static bool kernel_ip(unsigned long ip)
> {
>         return ip > TASK_SIZE;
> }
> #else
> static bool kernel_ip(unsigned long ip)
> {
>         return (long)ip < 0;
> }
> #endif
> 
> static int intel_pmu_pebs_fixup_ip(unsigned long *ipp)
> {
>         struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
>         unsigned long from = cpuc->lbr_entries[0].from;
>         unsigned long old_to, to = cpuc->lbr_entries[0].to;
>         unsigned long ip = *ipp;
>         int i;
> 
>         /*
>          * We don't need to fixup if the PEBS assist is fault like
>          */
>         if (!x86_pmu.intel_perf_capabilities.pebs_trap)
>                 return 0;
> 
>         if (!cpuc->lbr_stack.nr || !from || !to)
>                 return 0;
> 
>         if (ip < to)
>                 return 0;
> 
>         /*
>          * We sampled a branch insn, rewind using the LBR stack
>          */
>         if (ip == to) {
>                 *ipp = from;
>                 return 1;
>         }
> 
>         do {
>                 struct insn insn;
>                 u8 buf[MAX_INSN_SIZE];
>                 void *kaddr;
> 
>                 old_to = to;
>                 if (!kernel_ip(ip)) {
>                         int bytes = copy_from_user_nmi(buf, (void __user *)to,
>                                         MAX_INSN_SIZE);
> 
>                         if (bytes != MAX_INSN_SIZE)
>                                 return 0;
> 
>                         kaddr = buf;
>                 } else kaddr = (void *)to;
> 
>                 kernel_insn_init(&insn, kaddr);
>                 insn_get_length(&insn);
>                 to += insn.length;
>         } while (to < ip);
> 
>         if (to == ip) {
>                 *ipp = old_to;
>                 return 1;
>         }
> 
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> I thought about exposing the success of this fixup as a PERF_RECORD_MISC
> bit.
> 

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-03 21:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-03 16:39 [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Another stab at PEBS and LBR support Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/11] perf, x86: Remove superfluous arguments to x86_perf_event_set_period() Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/11] perf, x86: Remove superfluous arguments to x86_perf_event_update() Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/11] perf, x86: Change x86_pmu.{enable,disable} calling convention Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/11] perf, x86: Use unlocked bitops Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/11] perf: Generic perf_sample_data initialization Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 16:49   ` David Miller
2010-03-03 21:14   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-05  8:44   ` Jean Pihet
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/11] perf, x86: PEBS infrastructure Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 17:38   ` Robert Richter
2010-03-03 17:42     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04  8:50       ` Robert Richter
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/11] perf: Provide PERF_SAMPLE_REGS Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 17:30   ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-03 17:39     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 17:49       ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-03 17:55         ` David Miller
2010-03-03 18:18           ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-03 19:18           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04  2:59           ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-04 12:58             ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2010-03-03 22:02   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-04  8:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04 11:04       ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/11] perf, x86: Implement simple LBR support Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 21:52   ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-04  8:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 21:57   ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-04  8:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04 17:54       ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-04 18:18         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04 20:23           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-04 20:57             ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/11] perf, x86: Implement PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 21:08   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/11] perf, x86: use LBR for PEBS IP+1 fixup Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 18:05   ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-03-03 19:37     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-03 21:11       ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2010-03-03 21:50         ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-04  8:57           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-09  1:41             ` Stephane Eranian
2010-03-03 16:39 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/11] perf, x86: Clean up IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES usage Peter Zijlstra

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=4B8ED097.6090006@redhat.com \
    --to=mhiramat@redhat.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robert.richter@amd.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).