On Montag, 5. November 2018 21:51:19 CET Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 06:56:50PM +0100, Milian Wolff wrote: > > SNIP > > > > > Note how precise levels 0 and 1 do not produce any samples where > > > > unwinding > > > > fails. But precise level 2 produces some, and precise level 3 > > > > increases > > > > the > > > > amount (by ca. ~2x). > > > > > > > > I can reproduce this pattern on two separate Intel CPUs and kernel > > > > versions > > > > currently: > > > > > > > > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz with 4.18.16-arch1-1-ARCH > > > > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 4.14.78-1-lts > > > > > > > > Could someone else try this? What about AMD and IBS - is it also > > > > affected? > > > > What about newer/different Intel CPUs? > > > > > > I tried on intel and can't actualy see that.. how do the failed samples > > > look like? like is there the stack dump attached, what's in the regs? > > > > > > could you please paste the 'perf report -D' output for some of the > > > failed samples? > > > > See here for one case: https://paste.kde.org/prryvdilq > > we should really print some helpfull debug output > for this.. like to show some markers where the stack > data starts
Further down below, the offset for the ustack start is given (0xe0). But yes, that would be welcome. > > What Intel CPU did you use? What microcode version? Which kernel version? > > > > Generally, isn't what I'm seeing actually a neccessary evil of the ustack > > based unwinding in perf? I mean, the general procedure is as follows if > > I'm > > not mistaken: > > > > - PMU triggers interrupt and PEBS stores RIP etc. > > - code continous to execute, possibly changing the stack > > I dont think the code continues to execute.. the stack is ok Are you sure about this? I mean, isn't that the whole reason why we need PEBS? Generally, if you are sure about this, can you point me to some documentation on this to allow me to understand it better? Also, how do you explain the scenario I am seeing, with `cycles:` and `cycles:p` not suffering from this issue, but `cycles:pp` and `cycles:ppp` leading to broken samples? It _has_ to be PEBS then, no? What else could explain this? > the problem I saw in past is that the copy from user is not > 100% and sometimes you might not get full stack data you > asked for But that would indicate missing data at the end of the ustack dump? In our case, the "problematic" data is always at the start. Also note the apparent shift in the ustack copy which - in one case - directly correlatates with the code being executed, i.e. from objdump in libm I see: 0x0000000000029688 <+40>: sub $0x28,%rsp (https://paste.kde.org/poywa7y2z) The address of the expected parent frame is 7ffff7c7caf8 (hypotf32x+0x18). This can be found at offset 80 in the ustack dump (cf. https://paste.kde.org/ prryvdilq - ("f9 ca c7 f7 ff 7f" is found at 0x130, minus 0xe0 yields 0x50 or 80). >From the libunwind (or libdw) debug output in perf, we see that the unwinder tries to access offset 32 (cf. https://paste.kde.org/prryvdilq#line-610), which is ofset by 48 from the desired value of 80. This offset is *veroy* close to the value of 40 we see in the libm disassembly for __hypot_function ("$0x28,%rsp"). Is this really just a coincidence? > have you tried with libdw unwinder? if one of the unwinder > shows more callchains, we need to fix the other one ;-) Yes, I've looked at both unwinders. Both try to access the same values, and both break due to seemingly wrong data being read from the stack. And if you look at my other patches, you may have seen that I've regularly fixed the libdw unwinder to bring it closer to libunwind. Thanks -- Milian Wolff | milian.wo...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH, a KDAB Group company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
