From: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/perf: fix the word selected in find_*_bit
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:41:50 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <632e6ce5-afc6-5507-ef91-fddf727992ff@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160615211104.GA6978@yury-N73SV>
On Thursday 16 June 2016 02:41 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:51:27PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Hi Madhavan,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:12:53PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>>> When decoding the perf_regs mask in regs_dump__printf(),
>>> we loop through the mask using find_first_bit and find_next_bit functions.
>>> And mask is of type "u64". But "u64" is send as a "unsigned long *" to
>>> lib functions along with sizeof().
>>>
>>> While the exisitng code works fine in most of the case, when using a 32bit perf
>>> on a 64bit kernel (Big Endian), we end reading the wrong word. In find_first_bit(),
>>> one word at a time (based on BITS_PER_LONG) is loaded and
>>> checked for any bit set. In 32bit BE userspace,
>>> BITS_PER_LONG turns out to be 32, and for a mask value of
>>> "0x00000000000000ff", find_first_bit will return 32, instead of 0.
>>> Reason for this is that, value in the word0 is all zeros and value
>>> in word1 is 0xff. Ideally, second word in the mask should be loaded
>>> and searched. Patch swaps the word to look incase of 32bit BE.
>> I think this is not a problem of find_bit() at all. You have wrong
>> typecast as the source of problem (tools/perf/util/session.c"):
>>
>> 940 static void regs_dump__printf(u64 mask, u64 *regs)
>> 941 {
>> 942 unsigned rid, i = 0;
>> 943
>> 944 for_each_set_bit(rid, (unsigned long *) &mask, sizeof(mask) * 8) {
>> ^^^^ Here ^^^^
>> 945 u64 val = regs[i++];
>> 946
>> 947 printf(".... %-5s 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> 948 perf_reg_name(rid), val);
>> 949 }
>> 950 }
>>
>> But for some reason you change correct find_bit()...
>>
>> Though proper fix is like this for me:
>>
>> static void regs_dump__printf(u64 mask, u64 *regs)
>> {
>> unsigned rid, i = 0;
>> unsigned long _mask[sizeof(mask)/sizeof(unsigned long)];
>>
>> _mask[0] = mask & ULONG_MAX;
>> if (sizeof(mask) > sizeof(unsigned long))
>> _mask[1] = mask >> BITS_PER_LONG;
>>
>> for_each_set_bit(rid, _mask, sizeof(mask) * BITS_PER_BYTE) {
>> u64 val = regs[i++];
>>
>> printf(".... %-5s 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
>> perf_reg_name(rid), val);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Maybe there already is some macro doing the conversion for you...
> yes it is, cpu_to_le64() is what you want
no wait, on second look, cpu_to_le64() is not right.
Because we will end up swapping within 32bit.
But what you suggested looks to be fine. I can repost
this with one minor tweak, right shift with 32 instead
of BITS_PER_LONG (since I see compiler errors in 64bit).
Maddy
>
>> Yury.
>>
>>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
>>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
>>> Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
>>> Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
>>> Signed-off-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/lib/find_bit.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/find_bit.c b/tools/lib/find_bit.c
>>> index 9122a9e80046..996b3e04324f 100644
>>> --- a/tools/lib/find_bit.c
>>> +++ b/tools/lib/find_bit.c
>>> @@ -37,7 +37,12 @@ static unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
>>> if (!nbits || start >= nbits)
>>> return nbits;
>>>
>>> +#if (__BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN) && (BITS_PER_LONG != 64)
>>> + tmp = addr[(((nbits - 1)/BITS_PER_LONG) - (start / BITS_PER_LONG))]
>>> + ^ invert;
>>> +#else
>>> tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ invert;
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> /* Handle 1st word. */
>>> tmp &= BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start);
>>> @@ -48,7 +53,12 @@ static unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
>>> if (start >= nbits)
>>> return nbits;
>>>
>>> +#if (__BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN) && (BITS_PER_LONG != 64)
>>> + tmp = addr[(((nbits - 1)/BITS_PER_LONG) - (start / BITS_PER_LONG))]
>>> + ^ invert;
>>> +#else
>>> tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ invert;
>>> +#endif
>>> }
>>>
>>> return min(start + __ffs(tmp), nbits);
>>> @@ -75,8 +85,15 @@ unsigned long find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size)
>>> unsigned long idx;
>>>
>>> for (idx = 0; idx * BITS_PER_LONG < size; idx++) {
>>> +#if (__BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN) && (BITS_PER_LONG != 64)
>>> + if (addr[(((size-1)/BITS_PER_LONG) - idx)])
>>> + return min(idx * BITS_PER_LONG +
>>> + __ffs(addr[(((size-1)/BITS_PER_LONG) - idx)]),
>>> + size);
>>> +#else
>>> if (addr[idx])
>>> return min(idx * BITS_PER_LONG + __ffs(addr[idx]), size);
>>> +#endif
>>> }
>>>
>>> return size;
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-16 13:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-15 11:42 Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-06-15 12:44 ` George Spelvin
2016-06-16 7:21 ` Madhavan Srinivasan
2016-06-15 19:51 ` Yury Norov
2016-06-15 21:11 ` Yury Norov
2016-06-15 21:29 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2016-06-16 1:27 ` [PATCH] tools include: Fix wrong macro definitions for cpu_to_le* for big endian He Kuang
2016-06-16 1:32 ` He Kuang
2016-06-16 1:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] tools include: Sync byteorder/generic.h He Kuang
2016-06-16 6:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-06-16 1:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] tools include: Fix wrong macro definitions for cpu_to_le* for big endian He Kuang
2016-06-16 6:21 ` kbuild test robot
2016-06-16 6:39 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-06-16 1:35 ` [PATCH] tools/perf: fix the word selected in find_*_bit Hekuang
2016-06-16 13:11 ` Madhavan Srinivasan [this message]
2016-06-16 7:15 ` Madhavan Srinivasan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=632e6ce5-afc6-5507-ef91-fddf727992ff@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=wangnan0@huawei.com \
--cc=ynorov@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®