lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2]: perf/x86: store user space frame-pointer value on a sample
Date

Hi,
On 16.05.2018 11:42, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> Hi,
> On 15.05.2018 19:30, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> On May 15, 2018, at 1:08 AM, Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>>> On 09.05.2018 17:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 06:21:36PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Store user space frame-pointer value (BP register) into Perf trace
>>>>> on a sample for a process so the value becomes available when
>>>>> unwinding call stacks for functions gaining event samples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>>> index e47b2dbbdef3..8d68658eff7f 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>>>> @@ -156,7 +156,13 @@ void perf_get_regs_user(struct perf_regs *regs_user,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * Most system calls don't save these registers, don't report them.
>>>>
>>>> ^^^ that worries me and is the reason for the '-1's below. However I
>>>> think with all the PTI rework this might no longer be true.
>>>>
>>>> The Changelog needs to state that user_regs->bp is in fact valid and
>>>> ideally point to the commits that makes it so. Also this patch should
>>>> update that comment.
>>>>
>>>> Cc Andy who keeps better track of all that than me.
>>>
>>> Are there any thoughts so far? Feedback on the matter above is highly appreciated.
>>
>> Sorry, I missed this. Can you forward the original patch? I don’t have it.

Just to make sure this and below didn't sneak out of your attention.

>
> Store user space frame-pointer value (BP register) into Perf trace
> on a sample for a process so the value becomes available when
> unwinding call stacks for functions gaining event samples.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
> index e47b2dbbdef3..8d68658eff7f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
> @@ -156,7 +156,13 @@ void perf_get_regs_user(struct perf_regs *regs_user,
> * Most system calls don't save these registers, don't report them.
> */
> regs_user_copy->bx = -1;
> - regs_user_copy->bp = -1;
> + /*
> + * Store user space frame-pointer value on sample
> + * to facilitate stack unwinding for cases when
> + * user space executable code has such support
> + * enabled at compile time;
> + */
> + regs_user_copy->bp = user_regs->bp;
> regs_user_copy->r12 = -1;
> regs_user_copy->r13 = -1;
> regs_user_copy->r14 = -1;
>>> These days, system calls should save all registers, but I’m not entirely sure I want to promise that they’ll continue to do so forever.

Thanks,
Alexey

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-18 09:40    [W:0.084 / U:1.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site