[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP-5=fWH=Nt4Dr7-rHqqfPSHPQUP=Bof2iGWEZEpsz5NC+wZiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:07:02 -0800
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
Pablo Galindo <pablogsal@...il.com>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf unwind-libdw: Handle JIT-generated DSOs properly
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 11:05 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Usually DSOs are mapped from the beginning of the file, so the base
> address of the DSO can be calculated by map->start - map->pgoff.
>
> However, JIT DSOs which are generated by `perf inject -j`, are mapped
> only the code segment. This makes unwind-libdw code confusing and
> rejects processing unwinds in the JIT DSOs. It should use the map
> start address as base for them to fix the confusion.
>
> Fixes: 1fe627da3033 ("perf unwind: Take pgoff into account when reporting elf to libdwfl")
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c
> index 8554db3fc0d7..6013335a8dae 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ static int __report_module(struct addr_location *al, u64 ip,
> {
> Dwfl_Module *mod;
> struct dso *dso = NULL;
> + Dwarf_Addr base;
> /*
> * Some callers will use al->sym, so we can't just use the
> * cheaper thread__find_map() here.
> @@ -58,13 +59,25 @@ static int __report_module(struct addr_location *al, u64 ip,
> if (!dso)
> return 0;
>
> + /*
> + * The generated JIT DSO files only map the code segment without
> + * ELF headers. Since JIT codes used to be packed in a memory
> + * segment, calculating the base address using pgoff falls into
> + * a different code in another DSO. So just use the map->start
> + * directly to pick the correct one.
> + */
> + if (!strncmp(dso->long_name, "/tmp/jitted-", 12))
Perhaps it would be better to test:
dso->symtab_type == DSO_BINARY_TYPE__JAVA_JIT
Thanks,
Ian
> + base = map__start(al->map);
> + else
> + base = map__start(al->map) - map__pgoff(al->map);
> +
> mod = dwfl_addrmodule(ui->dwfl, ip);
> if (mod) {
> Dwarf_Addr s;
>
> dwfl_module_info(mod, NULL, &s, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> - if (s != map__start(al->map) - map__pgoff(al->map))
> - mod = 0;
> + if (s != base)
> + mod = NULL;
> }
>
> if (!mod) {
> @@ -72,14 +85,14 @@ static int __report_module(struct addr_location *al, u64 ip,
>
> __symbol__join_symfs(filename, sizeof(filename), dso->long_name);
> mod = dwfl_report_elf(ui->dwfl, dso->short_name, filename, -1,
> - map__start(al->map) - map__pgoff(al->map), false);
> + base, false);
> }
> if (!mod) {
> char filename[PATH_MAX];
>
> if (dso__build_id_filename(dso, filename, sizeof(filename), false))
> mod = dwfl_report_elf(ui->dwfl, dso->short_name, filename, -1,
> - map__start(al->map) - map__pgoff(al->map), false);
> + base, false);
> }
>
> if (mod) {
> --
> 2.43.0.472.g3155946c3a-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists