lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 00/14] perf record: Add support to store data in directory
Em Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:34:16AM -0800, Stephane Eranian escreveu:
> Jiri,
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:20 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 02:37:27PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 02:44:37PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > > Jiri,
> > > >
> > > > While you're looking at the output format, I think it would be good
> > > > time to simplify the code handling perf.data file.
> > > > Today, perf record can emit in two formats: file mode or pipe mode.
> > > > This adds complexity in the code and
> > > > is error prone as the file mode path is tested more than the pipe mode
> > > > path. We have run into multiple issues with
> > > > the pipe mode in recent years. There is no real reason why we need to
> > > > maintain two formats. If I recall, the pipe format
> > > > was introduced because on pipes you cannot lseek to update the headers
> > > > and therefore some of the information present as tables
> > > > updated on the fly needed to be generated as pseudo records by the
> > > > tool. I believe that the pipe format covers all the needs and could
> > > > supersede the file mode format. That would simplify code in perf
> > > > record and eliminate the risk of errors when new headers
> > > > are introduced.
> > >
> > > yep, I think we have almost all the features covered for pipe mode,
> > > and we have all necessary events to describe events features
> > >
> > > so with some effort we could switch off the superfluos file header
> > > and use only events to describe events ;-) make sense, I'll check
> > > on it
> >
> > so following features are not synthesized:
> >
> > FEAT_OPN(TRACING_DATA, tracing_data, false),
> > FEAT_OPN(BUILD_ID, build_id, false),
> > FEAT_OPN(BRANCH_STACK, branch_stack, false),
> > FEAT_OPN(AUXTRACE, auxtrace, false),
> > FEAT_OPN(STAT, stat, false),
> > FEAT_OPN(CACHE, cache, true),
> >
> What do you need for BRANCH_STACK?
>
> > I think all could be added and worked around with exception
> > of BUILD_ID, which we store at the end (after processing
> > all data) and we need it early in the report phase
> >
> Buildids are injected after the fact via perf inject when in pipe mode.
>
> > maybe it's time to re-think that buildid -> mmap event
> > association again, because it's pain in current implementation
> > as well
> >
> Sure, but what do you propose?

this keeps resurfacing, the idea is to have the building go together
with the PERF_RECORD_MMAP3 event, i.e. as part of setting up an
executable mapping the loader would get the buildid and ask the kernel
to keep it aroung, then when a PERF_RECORD_MMAP needs to be issued, it
can include the build id, so tooling will not need to get it.

Alternatively, we would have a separate thread to process
PERF_RECORD_MMAP events, and as soon as it gets one from the kernel,
augment it straight away with the build-id it reads from the ELF file,
i.e. no need to have the kernel provide it, do it just like we do with
PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT, which reminds me Song probably already posted
thise bits...

> > looks like bpf code is actualy getting build ids and storing
> > it for the callchains in kernel.. we can check if we can do
> > something similar for mmap events
> >
> > jirka

--

- Arnaldo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-11 19:56    [W:0.067 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site