[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=O-59PS5cXevufqm741wwH5kuxXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 23:41:28 +0200
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: bogus correlation of kernel symbols
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> > The bug is that perf doesn't say "I can't match kernel symbols", but
>> > instead does some crazy matching and gives total crap module information (I
>> > think it just picks the one that shows up last in /proc/kallsyms).
>>
>> But I agree perf must not silently return bogus information. It should print
>> a big warning message and/or fallback to printing the raw addresses. [...]
>
> Yes, agreed, this is a bug in perf. I found out about this about two weeks ago
> and reported it to Arnaldo, but he is away right now - he might be able to fix
> it next week the earliest.
>
>> [...] So much for having perf in the kernel source tree to keep things in
>> sync...
>
> What do you mean?
>
I meant that when this kptr feature was added, people should have scanned the
entire tree (include tools/perf) to look for potential impact on
programs relying
on /proc/kallsyms. Having perf in the tree should have made this easier to
catch. That's all.
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
--
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