[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F629725.30306@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:28:05 -0700
From: Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<acme@...hat.com>, <ravitillo@....gov>, <vweaver1@...s.utk.edu>,
<khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <dsahern@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Add branch stack support to perf script
On 3/15/12 1:08 PM, Arun Sharma wrote:
> The samples seem to have the sense of call/return
> inverted. If the original callgraph was a -> b -> c
> I get samples like:
>
> from to
> c b
> b a
>
> To restore the normal sense, I'm printing them as:
>
> to => from
I debugged this some more and something seems to be wrong with the the
way the kernel maps PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL to MSR_LBR_SELECT.
perf record -aj any_call,u -F 1 -- sleep 300 &
msr[0x1c8] = 0x1d
perf record -aj any_ret,u -F 1 -- sleep 300 &
msr[0x1c8] = 0x1ad
Stephane: does this give a clue about what may be wrong? It doesn't
match the kernel code:
static const int nhm_lbr_sel_map[PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_MAX] = {
...
[PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY_CALL] =
LBR_REL_CALL | LBR_IND_CALL | LBR_REL_JMP | LBR_IND_JMP | LBR_FAR,
};
It'd be nice to have *_lbr_sel_map[] in the same order as
enum perf_branch_sample_type. Right now, the call and return entries are
reversed. Which shouldn't matter in theory, since the initializer has an
explicit index.
I also got a kernel hang running the two perf record lines above
simultaneously (without the -F 1).
-Arun
--
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