[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530E4B42.5090401@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:14:58 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] perf, x86: Haswell LBR call stack support
On 2/26/14, 12:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:19 AM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 2/26/14, 11:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if anyone who uses perf for userspace profiling *ever* uses
>>> FP and gets away with it. There's precious little userspace software
>>> compiled with frame pointers these days on most architectures.
>>
>>
>> yes and yes. With control over the entire stack we are making sure
>> frame-pointers are enabled as much as possible.
>>
>
> I'm curious why.
Is there some reason not to enable frame pointers?
fp method has much less overhead than dwarf, and good, clear callchains
are important.
>
> Maybe this should be a config option. Anyone using a standard distro
> is running a nearly completely frame-pointer-omitted userspace these
> days.
Does WRL or Yocto fall into that 'standard distro' comment? Fairly easy
to enable frame-pointers.
David
--
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