[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZvMEGn5RIWMZNvFc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:25:30 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Hemant Kumar <hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yang Jihong <yangjihong@...edance.com>, leo.yan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] 2 memory fixes and a build fix
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 05:37:17PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> I was looking into some lsan regressions and a latent issue with
> libdw, creating these fixes.
>
> A thought, we should probably simplify the libdw logic but rather than
> do it here I'll do it as a separate series on top of these. The issues
> I see are:
>
> 1) dwfl_thread_getframes is used to test for the presence of
> libdw-dwarf-unwind. The blame date on this function is
> 2013-05-30. As the function is 10 years old I think having libdw
> implies having dwfl_thread_getframes and so we can just merge the
> two pieces of logic instead of having different feature tests and
> ifdefs.
>
> 2) similarly, dwarf_getlocations has a blame date of 2013-08-23 so
> let's just make libdw tests test for this and make having libdw
> imply dwarf_getlocations support.
>
> 3) similarly, dwarf_getcfi has a blame date of 2009-06-24 so let's
> just make libdw tests test for this and make having libdw imply
> dwarf_getcfi support.
>
> 4) in Makefie.config feature-dwarf is a synonym for libdw support. I
> think using the name libdw is more intention revealing as dwarf can
> mean multiple things. Let's change HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT to
> HAVE_LIBDW_SUPPORT and all similar dwarf vs libdw names.
>
> 5) We have "#if _ELFUTILS_PREREQ(0, 142)" testing for elfutils version
> 0.142. Elfutils 0.142 was released around 2009-06-13 (via git blame
> on the NEWS file). Let's remove the #if and ensure elfutils feature
> tests for at least 0.142. If someone were using an incredibly old
> version then they'd lose some elfutils support, but given the 15
> year old age of the library I find it unlikely anyone is doing
> this. They can also just move to a newer version.
Looking at the map file in libdw, the latest addition was 0.158 for
dwfl_thread_getframes(). Probably we can add the version check to the
feature test to make sure if it has all the required APIs.
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=elfutils.git;a=blob;f=libdw/libdw.map;h=552588a94c0c1a1f2fd5b973553c784026e6de14;hb=HEAD#l274
>
> From the mailing list I notice also overlap with the last patch and
> this series:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240919013513.118527-1-yangjihong@bytedance.com/
> Simplifying the libdw support will address some of those issues too.
Yeah I noticed that too and feel like it should go to perf-tools tree.
Probably it doesn't clash with this so I think it's ok to have this in
perf-tools-next.
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> Ian Rogers (3):
> perf disasm: Fix capstone memory leak
> perf probe: Fix libdw memory leak
> perf build: Fix !HAVE_DWARF_GETLOCATIONS_SUPPORT
>
> tools/perf/Makefile.config | 6 ++++++
> tools/perf/util/disasm.c | 11 +++++++----
> tools/perf/util/dwarf-aux.h | 1 +
> tools/perf/util/probe-finder.c | 5 +++++
> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.46.0.792.g87dc391469-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists