Re: [RFC] perf record: missing buildid for callstack modules

[Ingo Molnar]

* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Em Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:39:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > But perf tooling cares very much: it can lead to subtle bugs and bad data if we 
> > display a profile with the wrong DSO or binary. 'Bad' profiles resulting out of 
> > binary mismatch can be very convincing and can send developers down the wrong path 
> > for hours. I'd expect my tooling to not do that.
>  
> > Path names alone (the thing that exec() cares about) are not unique enough to 
> > identify the binary that was profiled. So we need a content hash - hence the 
> > build-ID.
>  
> > Can you suggest a better solution than a build-time calculated content hash?
>  
> > As for binary formats that suck and don't allow for a content hash: we do our 
> > best, but of course the risk of data mismatch is there. We could perhaps cache the 
> > binary inode's mtime field to at least produce a 'profile data is older than 
> > binary/DSO modification date!' warning. (Which check won't catch all cases, like 
> > cross-system profiling data matches.)
> 
> So, we could think of this as: binary formats that want to aid
> observability tools to:
> 
> 1) Detect mismatches in contents for DSOs present at recording time to
>    those to be used at analysis time.
> 
> 2) Find symtabs, DSO binary contents, CFI tables, present in the DSO
>    where samples were taken.
> 
> Using mtime, as suggested in other messages will help with #1, but not
> with #2.

But but ... why is #2 a problem with mtime? If we have an out of date record in 
the perf.data, then the perf.data is uninteresting in 99% of the usecases! It's 
out of date, most likely because the binary the developer is working on got 
rebuilt, or the system got upgraded - in both cases the developer does not care 
about the old records anymore...

What matters is #1, to detect mismatches, to be a reliable tool. Once we've 
detected that, we can inform the user and our job is mostly done.

But reliable != perfect time machine. Really, #2 is a second, third order concern 
that should never cause slowdowns on the magnitude that Peter is complaining 
about!

I realize that there might be special workflows (such as system-wide monitoring) 
where collecting at recording time might be useful, but those are not the common 
case - and they should not slow down the common case.

> Checking for inefficiencies in the current approach of
> right-after-recording post-processing looking for PERF_RECORD_MMAPs,
> Adrian suggested something here, also disabling the saving into
> ~/.debug/ will help, collecting numbers would be great.

I think Peter mentioned a number: the kernel build time almost _doubles_ with 
this. That's clearly unacceptable.

> But the mtime thing also requires traversing the whole perf.data
> contents looking for those paths in PERF_RECORD_MMAP records.

But why? Why cannot we do it at perf report time, when we will parse them anyway?

Thanks,

	Ingo