Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2017 16:49:10 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf report: ensure the perf DSO mapping matches what libdw sees |
| |
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu: > On Freitag, 2. Juni 2017 17:23:41 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Looks ok, having both implementations matching and the callchains making > > sense for your workloads is a good way to verify the sanity, thanks.
> > I wonder if we shouldn't somehow script this, i.e. build it with one > > implementation, generate output from some test workload, build it with > > the other, second output, diff it, report when not the same.
> That does sound like a good idea, but I'm unsure how to do it. Note that many > "simple" tests work just fine. Only larger complicated workloads trigger this > issue for me.
> One potential way to test it would be `perf archive` - i.e. I send you the > binaries involved and then we can use perf script diffing to ensure it all > works...
Humm, I'm trying to cook up a:
perf data filter --pid 12345 --perf-data-offset 1234567 --output perf.data.subset
to allow when finding some case like that to get a small subset of a perf.data file with just the sample we want to get the backtrace from + the mmaps, etc up to that point.
With that I could keep a repo of interesting perf.data files to have in my regression tests.
- Arnaldo
| |