From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50275) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKpNa-0006ad-VJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:04:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKpNV-0006Hn-DD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:04:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:33172) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZKpNV-0006H9-7d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:04:13 -0400 Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so24863865wic.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:04:12 -0700 (PDT) References: From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:04:10 +0100 Message-ID: <878u9xhel1.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Call Trace for QEMU functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Naman patel , QEMU Developers Peter Maydell writes: > On 30 July 2015 at 13:20, Naman patel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have compiled QEMU (2.0) for x86_64 on Fedora 22 with tracing enabled >> and the tracing option I chose was dtrace. I have this script called >> callTrace.stp in which I try and get the Call Trace of the function >> helper_invlpg and later tlb_flush. But I am not able to get the function >> name of the caller function and the call trace depth is only limited to 2. > > The helper_invlpg function is called directly from code generated > by QEMU's built-in JIT, not from any other C function. > > If you use a newer version of QEMU than 2.0 then I think we have > fixed some of the stack frame information up so that you can > get a backtrace that looks like: > * helper function > * [generated code] > * QEMU execution loop code that handles executing guest code > * other QEMU functions > > This is not likely to be very useful for profiling why or when > we're calling a particular helper function, though. With the perf JIT patch you can get a better handle on the profile. I'll see if I can re-spin them tomorrow for the latest tree. > > thanks > -- PMM -- Alex Bennée