From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
Cc: "arc-linux-dev@synopsys.com" <arc-linux-dev@synopsys.com>,
"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: make sure instruction_pointer() returns unsigned value
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:05:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075665AD94D@IN01WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1436772317-3785-1-git-send-email-abrodkin@synopsys.com>
On Monday 13 July 2015 12:55 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Currently instruction_pointer() returns pt_regs->ret and so return value
> is of type "long", which implicitly stands for "signed long".
>
> While that's perfectly fine when dealing with 32-bit values if return
> value of instruction_pointer() gets assigned to 64-bit variable sign
> extension may happen.
>
> And at least in one real use-case it happens already.
> In perf_prepare_sample() return value of perf_instruction_pointer()
> (which is an alias to instruction_pointer() in case of ARC) is assigned
> to (struct perf_sample_data)->ip (which type is "u64").
>
> And what we see if instuction pointer points to user-space application
> that in case of ARC lays below 0x8000_0000 "ip" gets set properly with
> leading 32 zeros. But if instruction pointer points to kernel address
> space that starts from 0x8000_0000 then "ip" is set with 32 leadig
> "f"-s. I.e. id instruction_pointer() returns 0x8100_0000, "ip" will be
> assigned with 0xffff_ffff__8100_0000. Which is obviously wrong.
>
> In particular that issuse broke output of perf, because perf was unable
> to associate addresses like 0xffff_ffff__8100_0000 with anything from
> /proc/kallsyms.
>
> That's what we used to see:
> ----------->8----------
> 6.27% ls [unknown] [k] 0xffffffff8046c5cc
> 2.96% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] memcpy
> 2.25% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] memset
> 1.66% ls [unknown] [k] 0xffffffff80666536
> 1.54% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] 0x000224d6
> 1.18% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] 0x00022472
> ----------->8----------
>
> With that change perf output looks much better now:
> ----------->8----------
> 8.21% ls [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memset
> 3.52% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] memcpy
> 2.11% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] malloc
> 1.88% ls libuClibc-0.9.34-git.so [.] memset
> 1.64% ls [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> 1.41% ls [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __d_lookup_rcu
> ----------->8----------
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
Thx Alexey - this solves a long standing mystery with some weird perf profiles.
Applied !
Thx,
-Vineet
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-13 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-13 7:25 Alexey Brodkin
2015-07-13 8:05 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
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=C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075665AD94D@IN01WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com \
--cc=arc-linux-dev@synopsys.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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®