mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf test: Fix dwarf unwind for optimized builds.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:32:13 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUyB3WQzMIw6U77k@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YUuna3dv+mgkkzqj@krava>

Em Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:00:11AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:38:12AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > To ensure the stack frames are on the stack tail calls optimizations
> > need to be inhibited. If your compiler supports an attribute use it,
> > otherwise use an asm volatile barrier.
> > 
> > The barrier fix was suggested here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201028081123.GT2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> > Tested with an optimized clang build and by forcing the asm barrier
> > route with an optimized clang build.
> > 
> > A GCC bug tracking a proper disable_tail_calls is:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97831
> > 
> > Fixes: 9ae1e990f1ab ("perf tools: Remove broken __no_tail_call
> >        attribute")
> > 
> > v2. is a rebase. The original fix patch generated quite a lot of
> >     discussion over the right place for the fix:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201114000803.909530-1-irogers@google.com/
> >     The patch reflects my preference of it being near the use, so that
> >     future code cleanups don't break this somewhat special usage.
> 
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>

Thanks, applied.

- Arnaldo

 
> thanks,
> jirka
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/dwarf-unwind.c b/tools/perf/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
> > index a288035eb362..c756284b3b13 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,23 @@
> >  /* For bsearch. We try to unwind functions in shared object. */
> >  #include <stdlib.h>
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * The test will assert frames are on the stack but tail call optimizations lose
> > + * the frame of the caller. Clang can disable this optimization on a called
> > + * function but GCC currently (11/2020) lacks this attribute. The barrier is
> > + * used to inhibit tail calls in these cases.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef __has_attribute
> > +#if __has_attribute(disable_tail_calls)
> > +#define NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE __attribute__((disable_tail_calls))
> > +#define NO_TAIL_CALL_BARRIER
> > +#endif
> > +#endif
> > +#ifndef NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE
> > +#define NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE
> > +#define NO_TAIL_CALL_BARRIER __asm__ __volatile__("" : : : "memory");
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  static int mmap_handler(struct perf_tool *tool __maybe_unused,
> >  			union perf_event *event,
> >  			struct perf_sample *sample,
> > @@ -91,7 +108,7 @@ static int unwind_entry(struct unwind_entry *entry, void *arg)
> >  	return strcmp((const char *) symbol, funcs[idx]);
> >  }
> >  
> > -noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__thread(struct thread *thread)
> > +NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__thread(struct thread *thread)
> >  {
> >  	struct perf_sample sample;
> >  	unsigned long cnt = 0;
> > @@ -122,7 +139,7 @@ noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__thread(struct thread *thread)
> >  
> >  static int global_unwind_retval = -INT_MAX;
> >  
> > -noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__compare(void *p1, void *p2)
> > +NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__compare(void *p1, void *p2)
> >  {
> >  	/* Any possible value should be 'thread' */
> >  	struct thread *thread = *(struct thread **)p1;
> > @@ -141,7 +158,7 @@ noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__compare(void *p1, void *p2)
> >  	return p1 - p2;
> >  }
> >  
> > -noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_3(struct thread *thread)
> > +NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_3(struct thread *thread)
> >  {
> >  	struct thread *array[2] = {thread, thread};
> >  	void *fp = &bsearch;
> > @@ -160,14 +177,22 @@ noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_3(struct thread *thread)
> >  	return global_unwind_retval;
> >  }
> >  
> > -noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_2(struct thread *thread)
> > +NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_2(struct thread *thread)
> >  {
> > -	return test_dwarf_unwind__krava_3(thread);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret =  test_dwarf_unwind__krava_3(thread);
> > +	NO_TAIL_CALL_BARRIER;
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_1(struct thread *thread)
> > +NO_TAIL_CALL_ATTRIBUTE noinline int test_dwarf_unwind__krava_1(struct thread *thread)
> >  {
> > -	return test_dwarf_unwind__krava_2(thread);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret =  test_dwarf_unwind__krava_2(thread);
> > +	NO_TAIL_CALL_BARRIER;
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> >  int test__dwarf_unwind(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __maybe_unused)
> > -- 
> > 2.33.0.464.g1972c5931b-goog
> > 

-- 

- Arnaldo

      reply	other threads:[~2021-09-23 13:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-22 17:38 Ian Rogers
2021-09-22 22:00 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-09-23 13:32   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [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=YUyB3WQzMIw6U77k@kernel.org \
    --to=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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®