Re: [BUG REPORT] perf tools: x86_64: Broken calllchain when sampling taken at 'callq' instruction

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:23:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > PEBS is an asynchronous hardware tracing mechanism, when batched PEBS is used it 
> > might not even result in any interruption of execution. The 'pt_regs' does not 
> > necessarily correspond to an interrupted, restartable context - we take the RIP 
> > from the PEBS machinery and also use LBR and disassembly to determine the previous 
> > instruction, before reporting it to user-space.
> 
> Note that modern PEBS hardware (hsw+) does the rollback in hardware.
> Prior to that we indeed to it manually using the LBR.
> 
> As to pt_regs, we construct a franken pt_regs based on the actual PEBS
> buffer overflow PMI and bits from the PEBS record (which also includes
> some register state). See
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c:setup_pebs_sample_data().
> 
> We always copy the flags, ip, bp and sp from the PEBS record into the
> interrupt pt_regs.
> 
> And note that the PEBS record is constructed at instruction retirement,
> so it shows the state _after_ the instruction, with exception of the
> (hsw+) real_ip field.
> 
> So the unwinder will have to be taught that if the IP points at a stack
> altering instruction (call, push, etc.) it will have to 'undo' the
> effects on the actual stack (I appreciate this might be 'interesting'
> for things like: pop, ret, etc.).

So do we dump both the 'real' and the actual RIP, to not force tooling into having 
to decode instructions and such? (Which is pretty hard and fragile and not always 
possible with instructions that destroy the original RIP, like JMP, etc.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/