Re: [PATCH] perf c2c report: Fix crash for empty browser

[Jiri Olsa]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:13:40AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Adding Joe to the CC list.
> 
> Em Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 09:06:23AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:31:34PM +0000, rodia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On 2018-07-26 19:30, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > > > Do not try to display entry details if there's
> > > > > not any. Currently this ends up in crash:
> > > > >   $ perf c2c report
> > > > >   perf: Segmentation fault
> 
> > > > How to replicate this?
> 
> > > > I tried:
> 
> > > > $ perf record sleep 1
> > > > $ perf c2c report
> 
> > > > But it didn't segfault
> 
> > > Similarly I have tried :
> > > $ perf record sleep 1
> > > $ perf c2c report
> > > Then Press `d` to show the cache-line contents.
> 
> > yep, sry I forgot to mention you need to press the 'd' to show details
>  
> > > This replies the segfault on my machine (4.17.8-1).
> > > The patch mentioned above should solve it, even tough I am not sure as I
> > > haven't been able to recompile the kernel.
>  
> > no need to recompile kernel
>  
> > > The segfault by itself seems to be due to the report logic, as it did not
> > > expect to report on an empty browser.
> > > What has stepped me back is that application which I have been testing with
> > > rely on multiple threads instantiated through pthread, which should be
> > > counted in user-level threads right? But they still seem to return an empty
> > > browser.
>  
> > right, c2c scans read/write accesses and tries to find false sharing
> > cases maybe there was nothing to be found
>  
> > > When instead c2c is runned system-wide, with an application running on
> > > multiple threads like firefox or julia, cache hits are measured and also
> > > they are traced back in the source code.
>  
> > I got a cache line (attached) for 'perf bench sched messaging'
> > NOT being traced system wide and just for user (you'll get plenty
> > of detected cachelines in kernel space):
> 
> With that info in mind, we get:
> 
> [root@seventh ~]# perf record sleep 1
> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.001 MB perf.data (6 samples) ]
> [root@seventh ~]# 
> [root@seventh ~]# 
> [root@seventh ~]# perf c2c report # and press 'd'
> perf: Segmentation fault
> -------- backtrace --------
> perf[0x5b1d2a]
> /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x346df)[0x7fcb566e36df]
> perf[0x46fcae]
> perf[0x4a9f1e]
> perf[0x4aa220]
> perf(main+0x301)[0x42c561]
> /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe9)[0x7fcb566cff29]
> perf(_start+0x29)[0x42c999]
> [root@seventh ~]#
> 
> With your patches the segfault is gone, but I'd do a follow up patch to
> show some message telling the user why 'd' showed nothing and
> instructing him about what is missing, i.e. is this done on a perf.data
> file that has no events of interest? Suggest using 'perf c2c record' or
> 'perf record -e events,of,interest,to,perf,c2c', was this done on some
> workload where no false sharing was detected? Say so, etc.

ok, will try to come up with something

> 
> I applied your patch with a more detailed commit log to state how this
> can reproduced, etc, as usual:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/acme/c/983eb6aa7098

I checked, looks good, thanks

jirka