[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100121132014.GH5017@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:20:18 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix inconsistency between IP and callchain
sampling
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 04:47:07PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> When running perf across all cpus with backtracing (-a -g), sometimes we
> get samples without associated backtraces:
>
> 23.44% init [kernel] [k] restore
> 11.46% init eeba0c [k] 0x00000000eeba0c
> 6.77% swapper [kernel] [k] .perf_ctx_adjust_freq
> 5.73% init [kernel] [k] .__trace_hcall_entry
> 4.69% perf libc-2.9.so [.] 0x0000000006bb8c
> |
> |--11.11%-- 0xfffa941bbbc
>
> It turns out the backtrace code has a check for the idle task and the IP
> sampling does not. This creates problems when profiling an interrupt
> heavy workload (in my case 10Gbit ethernet) since we get no backtraces
> for interrupts received while idle (ie most of the workload).
>
> Right now x86 and sh check that current is not NULL, which should never
> happen so remove that too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
I'm queuing it. Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists