Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tools: Add callchain order support for libunwind DWARF unwinder

[Namhyung Kim]

On November 18, 2015 5:25:25 PM GMT+09:00, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:41:14PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>SNIP
>
>> > I'm not sure whether we can regard this behavior changing as a
>bugfix? I
>> > think
>> > there may be some reason the original code explicitly avoid
>creating an '0'
>> > entry.
>> 
>> I think callchain value being 0 is an error or marker for the end of
>> callchain.  So it'd be better avoiding 0 entry.
>> 
>> But unfortunately, we have many 0 entries (and broken callchain after
>> them) with fp recording on optimized binaries.  I think we should
>omit
>> those callchains.
>> 
>> Maybe something like this?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
>> index 5ef90be2a249..22642c5719ab 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
>> @@ -1850,6 +1850,15 @@ static int
>thread__resolve_callchain_sample(struct thread *thread,
>>  #endif
>>  		ip = chain->ips[j];
>>  
>> +		/* callchain value inside zero page means it's broken, stop */
>> +		if (ip < 4096) {
>> +			if (callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLER) {
>> +				callchain_cursor_reset(&callchain_cursor);
>
>hum, do we want to throw away whatever we have till now?

For caller order, yes.  

For callee order, everything after 0 value is garbage.  So we need to discard any chains before the 0 for caller IMHO.

Thanks
Namhyung


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/