Em Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:49:59PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:35 AM Tiezhu Yang <yangtie...@loongson.cn> wrote: > > > > DWARF register mappings have not been defined for some architectures, > > at least for mips, so we can print an error message and then return > > directly when use '--call-graph dwarf'. > > > > E.g. without this patch: > > > > [root@linux perf]# ./perf record --call-graph dwarf cd > > Error: > > The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 89 (Function not > > implemented) for event (cycles). > > /bin/dmesg | grep -i perf may provide additional information. > > > > With this patch: > > > > [root@linux perf]# ./perf record --call-graph dwarf cd > > DWARF is not supported for architecture mips64 > > > > Usage: perf record [<options>] [<command>] > > or: perf record [<options>] -- <command> [<options>] > > > > --call-graph <record_mode[,record_size]> > > setup and enables call-graph (stack > > chain/backtrace): > > > > record_mode: call graph recording mode > > (fp|dwarf|lbr) > > record_size: if record_mode is 'dwarf', > > max size of stack recording (<bytes>) > > default: 8192 (bytes) > > > > Default: fp > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtie...@loongson.cn> > > --- > > > > v2: Use HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT to check > > I'm not sure whether this is because of lack of dwarf library or kernel > support. > Based on the error message, I guess it's from the kernel. Then I think this > patch won't be sufficient..
tools/perf/Makefile.config ifndef NO_DWARF ifeq ($(origin PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS), undefined) msg := $(warning DWARF register mappings have not been defined for architecture $(SRCARCH), DWARF support disabled); NO_DWARF := 1 else CFLAGS += -DHAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT $(LIBDW_CFLAGS) LDFLAGS += $(LIBDW_LDFLAGS) EXTLIBS += ${DWARFLIBS} $(call detected,CONFIG_DWARF) endif # PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS endif # NO_DWARF [acme@five perf]$ find tools/perf -type f | xargs grep PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS tools/perf/arch/xtensa/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/x86/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/arm/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/s390/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/powerpc/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/sh/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/riscv/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/sparc/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/arch/csky/Makefile:PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 tools/perf/Makefile.config: ifeq ($(origin PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS), undefined) tools/perf/Makefile.config: endif # PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS [acme@five perf]$ Ouch: [acme@five perf]$ cat tools/perf/arch/xtensa/Makefile # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only ifndef NO_DWARF PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS := 1 endif [acme@five perf]$ So you have a point, only if NO_DWARF is not defined, then PERF_HAVE_DWARF_REGS is can be used to define HAVE_DWARF_SUPPORT, too clumsy. So probably my hunch that this should be done at evsel__open_strerror() and use perf_missing_features.dwarf_regs is what we should go... I'm removing this patch from my current tree, please take a look at: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=tmp.perf/core&id=f55c66234c1967f6e56e56c3e084f80b417c124b For how I did this for another feature that the kernel may or not support, perf_event_open() fails, it notices that in perf_missing_features and then later evsel__open_strerror() returns a sensible warning, reacting to something the running kernel returned. - Arnaldo