* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:23:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > PEBS is an asynchronous hardware tracing mechanism, when batched PEBS is
> > used it
> > might not even result in any interruption of execution. The 'pt_regs' does
> > not
> > necessarily correspond to an interrupted, restartable context - we take the
> > RIP
> > from the PEBS machinery and also use LBR and disassembly to determine the
> > previous
> > instruction, before reporting it to user-space.
>
> Note that modern PEBS hardware (hsw+) does the rollback in hardware.
> Prior to that we indeed to it manually using the LBR.
>
> As to pt_regs, we construct a franken pt_regs based on the actual PEBS
> buffer overflow PMI and bits from the PEBS record (which also includes
> some register state). See
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c:setup_pebs_sample_data().
>
> We always copy the flags, ip, bp and sp from the PEBS record into the
> interrupt pt_regs.
>
> And note that the PEBS record is constructed at instruction retirement,
> so it shows the state _after_ the instruction, with exception of the
> (hsw+) real_ip field.
>
> So the unwinder will have to be taught that if the IP points at a stack
> altering instruction (call, push, etc.) it will have to 'undo' the
> effects on the actual stack (I appreciate this might be 'interesting'
> for things like: pop, ret, etc.).
So do we dump both the 'real' and the actual RIP, to not force tooling into
having
to decode instructions and such? (Which is pretty hard and fragile and not
always
possible with instructions that destroy the original RIP, like JMP, etc.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
