[PATCHv8 00/13] perf: Add backtrace post dwarf unwind
From: Jiri Olsa
Date: Fri Jul 27 2012 - 08:24:16 EST
hi,
patches available also as tarball in here:
http://people.redhat.com/~jolsa/perf_post_unwind_v8.tar.bz2
v8 changes:
- patch 2 - added dump registers ABI specification as suggested
by Stephane
- v7 patches 9,10,16,17 already in
v7 changes:
- omitted v6 patches 9 and 15
They need more work and will be sent separately. I dont want to hold off whole
patchset because of them. We could miss some related backtraces (syscall, vdso)
in this version.
- v6 patch 11, 14, 20 already in
v6 changes:
patch 01/23 - unrelated - ftrace stuff
patch 03/23 - added PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_USER bit
- added regs_user initialization
patch 07/23 - added PERF_SAMPLE_STACK_USER bit
- sample_stack_user changed to u32 and
added size check
new patches 1,9,10,20
v5 changes:
patch 1/19 - having just one enum set of the perf registers
patch 2/19 - using for_each_set_bit for scanning the mask
- single regs enum for both 32 and 64 bits versions
- using regs mask != 0 trigger to trigger the regs dump
patch 5/19 - adding perf_output_skip so we can skip undumped part of the stack in RB
patch 6/19 - using stack size != 0 trigger to trigger the stack dump
- do not zero the memory for non retrieved part of the stack dump
patch 7/19 - adding exclude_callchain_kernel attribute
patch 8/19 - this could be taken without the rest of the series
v4 changes:
- no real change from v3, just rebase
- v3 patch 06/17 got already merged
v3 changes:
patch 01/17
- added HAVE_PERF_REGS config option
patch 02/17, 04/17
- regs and stack perf interface is more general now
patch 06/17
- unrelated online fix for i386 compilation
patch 16/17
- few namespace fixies
---
Adding the post unwinding user stack backtrace using dwarf unwind
via libunwind. The original work was done by Frederic. I mostly took
his patches and make them compile in current kernel code plus I added
some stuff here and there.
The main idea is to store user registers and portion of user
stack when the sample data during the record phase. Then during
the report, when the data is presented, perform the actual dwarf
dwarf unwind.
attached patches:
01/13 perf: Unified API to record selective sets of arch registers
02/13 perf: Add ability to attach user level registers dump to sample
03/13 perf, x86: Add copy_from_user_nmi_nochk for best effort copy
04/13 perf: Factor __output_copy to be usable with specific copy function
05/13 perf: Add perf_output_skip function to skip bytes in sample
06/13 perf: Add ability to attach user stack dump to sample
07/13 perf: Add attribute to filter out callchains
08/13 perf, tool: Adding PERF_ATTR_SIZE_VER2 to the header swap check
09/13 perf, tool: Add interface to arch registers sets
10/13 perf, tool: Add libunwind dependency for dwarf cfi unwinding
11/13 perf, tool: Support user regs and stack in sample parsing
12/13 perf, tool: Support for dwarf cfi unwinding on post processing
13/13 perf, tool: Support for dwarf mode callchain on perf record
I tested on Fedora. There was not much gain on i386, because the
binaries are compiled with frame pointers. Thought the dwarf
backtrace is more accurate and unwraps calls in more details
(functions that do not set the frame pointers).
I could see some improvement on x86_64, where I got full backtrace
where current code could got just the first address out of the
instruction pointer.
Example on x86_64:
[dwarf]
perf record -g dwarf -e syscalls:sys_enter_write date
100.00% date libc-2.14.90.so [.] __GI___libc_write
|
--- __GI___libc_write
_IO_file_write@@GLIBC_2.2.5
new_do_write
_IO_do_write@@GLIBC_2.2.5
_IO_file_overflow@@GLIBC_2.2.5
0x4022cd
0x401ee6
__libc_start_main
0x4020b9
[frame pointer]
perf record -g fp -e syscalls:sys_enter_write date
100.00% date libc-2.14.90.so [.] __GI___libc_write
|
--- __GI___libc_write
Also I tested on coreutils binaries mainly, but I could see
getting wider backtraces with dwarf unwind for more complex
application like firefox.
Attached patches should work on both x86 and x86_64.
The unwind backtrace can be interrupted by following reasons:
- bug in unwind information of processed shared library
- bug in unwind processing code (most likely ;) )
- insufficient dump stack size
- until full syscall register storage and vdso support
we could miss some related backtraces
jirka
---
arch/Kconfig | 6 +
arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 2 +
arch/x86/include/asm/perf_regs.h | 33 ++
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 2 +
arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 2 +
arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c | 105 ++++
arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c | 15 +-
include/linux/perf_event.h | 60 ++-
include/linux/perf_regs.h | 25 +
kernel/events/callchain.c | 25 +-
kernel/events/core.c | 190 +++++++-
kernel/events/internal.h | 69 ++-
kernel/events/ring_buffer.c | 10 +-
tools/perf/Makefile | 45 ++-
tools/perf/arch/x86/Makefile | 3 +
tools/perf/arch/x86/include/perf_regs.h | 80 +++
tools/perf/arch/x86/util/unwind.c | 111 ++++
tools/perf/builtin-record.c | 108 ++++-
tools/perf/builtin-report.c | 24 +-
tools/perf/builtin-script.c | 16 +-
tools/perf/builtin-test.c | 4 +-
tools/perf/builtin-top.c | 5 +-
tools/perf/config/feature-tests.mak | 25 +
tools/perf/perf.h | 9 +-
tools/perf/util/event.h | 16 +-
tools/perf/util/evlist.c | 8 +
tools/perf/util/evlist.h | 1 +
tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 43 ++-
tools/perf/util/header.c | 3 +
tools/perf/util/include/linux/compiler.h | 1 +
tools/perf/util/map.h | 7 +-
tools/perf/util/perf_regs.h | 14 +
tools/perf/util/python.c | 3 +-
.../perf/util/scripting-engines/trace-event-perl.c | 3 +-
.../util/scripting-engines/trace-event-python.c | 3 +-
tools/perf/util/session.c | 97 +++-
tools/perf/util/session.h | 11 +-
tools/perf/util/trace-event-scripting.c | 3 +-
tools/perf/util/trace-event.h | 5 +-
tools/perf/util/unwind.c | 567 ++++++++++++++++++++
tools/perf/util/unwind.h | 34 ++
42 files changed, 1700 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
--
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/