Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1671266 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping]

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 03:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> - 2017-06-21 03:40 +0200

#1671266 — Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping]

Em Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:16:32PM +0200, Mark Wielaard escreveu:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:46 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch:
> > 
> > commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6
> > Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
> > Date:   Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200
> > 
> >     perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw
> >     
> >     So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before
> >     the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common
> >     scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still
> >     interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing
> >     perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding.
> > 
> > If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing.
> 
> Thanks! No, I didn't have that patch (*) yet. It makes a huge
> difference. With that, Paolo's patch and the elfutils libdw powerpc64
> fallback unwinder patch, it looks like I get user stack traces for
> everything now on ppc64le.

Can I take that as a Tested-by: you?

- Arnaldo
 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 
> (*) It just this one-liner, but what a difference that makes:
> 
> --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c
> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int unwind__get_entries(unwind_entry_cb_t cb, void *arg,
>  
>         err = dwfl_getthread_frames(ui->dwfl, thread->tid, frame_callback, ui);
>  
> -       if (err && !ui->max_stack)
> +       if (err && ui->max_stack != max_stack)
>                 err = 0;
>  
>         /*

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1671280

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:06:35PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:16:32PM +0200, Mark Wielaard escreveu:
> > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:46 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch:
> > > 
> > > commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6
> > > Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
> > > Date:   Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200
> > > 
> > >     perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw
> > >     
> > >     So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before
> > >     the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common
> > >     scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still
> > >     interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing
> > >     perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding.
> > > 
> > > If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing.
> > 
> > Thanks! No, I didn't have that patch (*) yet. It makes a huge
> > difference. With that, Paolo's patch and the elfutils libdw powerpc64
> > fallback unwinder patch, it looks like I get user stack traces for
> > everything now on ppc64le.
> 
> Can I take that as a Tested-by: you?

Sure.
Tested-by: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>

Thanks,

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web