Re: [PATCH 02/26] perf: Introduce mmap3 version of mmap event

[Jiri Olsa]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:08:01AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:

SNIP

> >
> > Using one of the MISC bits to resolve the union. Might actually bring
> > benefit to everyone. Us normal people get to have a smaller MMAP record,
> > while the buildid folks can have it too.
> >
> > Even more extreme would be using 2 MISC bits and allowing the union to
> > be 0 sized for anon.
> >
> > That said; I have the nagging feeling there were unresolved issues with
> > mmap2, but I can't seem to find any relevant emails on it :/ My
> > google-fu is weak today.
> 
> Firstly, thanks Jiri for this really useful patch set for our
> use-cases! Some thoughts:
> 
> One issue with mmap2 events at the moment is that they happen "after"
> the mmap is performed. This allows the mapped address to be known but
> has the unfortunate problem of causing mmap events to get "extended"
> due to adjacent vmas being merged. There are some workarounds like
> commit c8f6ae1fb28d (perf inject jit: Remove //anon mmap events).
> Perhaps these events can switch to reporting the length the mmap
> requested rather than the length of the vma?

seems like separate feature, perhaps we could use another MISC bit for that?

> 
> I could imagine that changes here could be interesting to folks doing
> CHERI or hypervisors, for example, they may want more address bits.
> 
> BPF has stack traces with elements of buildid + offset. Using these in
> perf samples would avoid the need for mmap events, synthesis, etc. but
> at the cost of larger and possibly slower stack traces. Perhaps we
> should just remove the idea of mmap events altogether?

hm, we also need mmap events to resolve PERF_SAMPLE_IP, right?
also not sure how would we do that for dwarf unwind, and perhaps
there are some other places.. c2c data address resolving?

thanks,
jirka