On 12/07/2015 03:16 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 03:04:27PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > SNIP > >> Hi. >> >> Unfortunately, running 'perf report' for a medium-size report is very fast a > > not if you use TUI ;-) > >> killing the process from other terminal produces: >> >> [Current thread is 1 (Thread 0x7ffff7fc5740 (LWP 7429))] >> (gdb) bt >> #0 0x00007ffff632d230 in __write_nocancel () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #1 0x00007ffff62c4dff in _IO_new_file_write () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #2 0x00007ffff62c4403 in new_do_write () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #3 0x00007ffff62c5d09 in __GI__IO_do_write () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #4 0x00007ffff62c5417 in __GI__IO_file_xsputn () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #5 0x00007ffff6299cdb in vfprintf () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #6 0x00007ffff62a03f7 in fprintf () from /lib64/libc.so.6 >> #7 0x00000000004ef12c in hist_entry__fprintf (he=he@entry=0x1c62b30, >> size=<optimized out>, size@entry=0, hists=hists@entry=0x1813818, > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> bf=bf@entry=0x1d5cd40 " 0.08% cc1plus cc1plus", ' ' <repeats 11 >> times>, "[.] >> _Z25number_of_iterations_exitP4loopP8edge_defP15tree_niter_descbb", ' ' >> <repeats 91 times>..., bfsz=bfsz@entry=479, fp=fp@entry=0x7ffff65f0640 >> <_IO_2_1_stdout_>) >> at ui/stdio/hist.c:427 >> #8 0x00000000004ef549 in hists__fprintf (hists=hists@entry=0x1813818, >> show_header=show_header@entry=true, max_rows=max_rows@entry=0, >> max_cols=max_cols@entry=0, min_pcnt=0, fp=0x7ffff65f0640 <_IO_2_1_stdout_>) >> at ui/stdio/hist.c:534 >> #9 0x000000000042d6a3 in perf_evlist__tty_browse_hists (evlist=0x1812c90, >> rep=rep@entry=0x7fffffffc6e0, help=help@entry=0x515948 "For a higher level >> overview, try: perf report --sort comm,dso") at builtin-report.c:370 >> #10 0x000000000042d7d2 in report__browse_hists >> (rep=rep@entry=0x7fffffffc6e0) at builtin-report.c:455 >> #11 0x000000000042d992 in __cmd_report (rep=rep@entry=0x7fffffffc6e0) at >> builtin-report.c:571 >> #12 0x000000000042ec1f in cmd_report (argc=0, argv=0x7fffffffde00, >> prefix=<optimized out>) at builtin-report.c:957 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >> #13 0x000000000046c496 in run_builtin (p=p@entry=0x7771a0 <commands+192>, >> argc=argc@entry=1, argv=argv@entry=0x7fffffffde00) at perf.c:387 >> #14 0x000000000046c693 in handle_internal_command (argc=1, >> argv=0x7fffffffde00) at perf.c:448 >> #15 0x000000000046c6fe in run_argv (argcp=argcp@entry=0x7fffffffdc6c, >> argv=argv@entry=0x7fffffffdc60) at perf.c:492 >> #16 0x000000000046c94c in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffde00) at perf.c:609 >> >> Which is fine. > > marked 2 instances of 'optimized out' cases above in your output > >> >> I've been using GCC 5.2. What version are you using? > > 5.1.1 > >> I've also tried to run './perf test' and terminate the process at random >> places, but the back trace was OK. >> >> I would appreciate if you send me a patch that causes a segfault that is >> wrongly displayed. > > if you run TUI, you dont need to be fast ;-) make sure you compile with slang > devel pkg > > thanks. > jirka >
Hello. I've just created PR for GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68836 According to discussing with Jakub Jelinek, that's a semi-known issues that's going to be eventually fixed. Martin -- 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/
