[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgOPUoGr96yc=M=bBTQG-jkW269Lc7-uEYTWGURiCAjyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:44:15 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf lock contention: Improve call stack handling (v1)
Hi Arnaldo,
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 11:43 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> 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!
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists