Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf lock contention: Improve call stack handling (v1)

[Namhyung Kim]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 1:22 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Em Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:44:15PM -0700, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > Hi Arnaldo,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:43 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Em Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:37:50PM -0700, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I found that call stack from the lock tracepoint (using bpf_get_stackid)
> > > > can be different on each configuration.  For example it's very different
> > > > when I run it on a VM than on a real machine.
> > > >
> > > > The perf lock contention relies on the stack trace to get the lock
> > > > caller names, this kind of difference can be annoying.  Ideally we could
> > > > skip stack trace entries for internal BPF or lock functions and get the
> > > > correct caller, but it's not the case as of today.  Currently it's hard
> > > > coded to control the behavior of stack traces for the lock contention
> > > > tracepoints.
> > > >
> > > > To handle those differences, add two new options to control the number of
> > > > stack entries and how many it skips.  The default value worked well on
> > > > my VM setup, but I had to use --stack-skip=5 on real machines.
> > > >
> > > > You can get it from 'perf/lock-stack-v1' branch in
> > > >
> > > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/namhyung/linux-perf.git
> > >
> > > This clashed with a patch you Acked earlier, so lets see if someone has
> > > extra review comments and a v2 become needed for other reason, when you
> > > can refresh it, ok?
> >
> > Sounds good!
>
> Have you resubmitted this? /me goes on the backlog...

Yep :)

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220912055314.744552-1-namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx