Em Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 07:29:34PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Montag, 5. Oktober 2015 13:08:36 CEST Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 05:38:17PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 05:16:37PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > > > We cannot reverse the order of the libunwind stepper. To workaround
> > > > this, we store the IPs in a temporary stack buffer and then walk
> > > > this buffer in reverse order when callchain_param.order is set to
> > > > ORDER_CALLER.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Milian Wolff <milian.wo...@kdab.com>
> > >
> > > Jiri,
> > >
> > > Can you please take a look at this?
> > >
> > > - Arnaldo
> > >
> > > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c
> > > > b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c index 4c00507..bf631f1 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libunwind.c
> > > > @@ -621,11 +621,24 @@ static int get_entries(struct unwind_info *ui,
> > > > unwind_entry_cb_t cb,> >
> > > > if (ret)
> > > >
> > > > display_error(ret);
> > > >
> > > > - while (!ret && (unw_step(&c) > 0) && max_stack--) {
> > > > - unw_word_t ip;
> > > > + if (callchain_param.order == ORDER_CALLEE) {
> > > > + while (!ret && (unw_step(&c) > 0) && max_stack--) {
> > > > + unw_word_t ip;
> > > >
> > > > - unw_get_reg(&c, UNW_REG_IP, &ip);
> > > > - ret = ip ? entry(ip, ui->thread, cb, arg) : 0;
> > > > + unw_get_reg(&c, UNW_REG_IP, &ip);
> > > > + ret = ip ? entry(ip, ui->thread, cb, arg) : 0;
> > > > + }
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + unw_word_t ips[max_stack];
> > > > + int i = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + while ((unw_step(&c) > 0) && i < max_stack) {
> > > > + unw_get_reg(&c, UNW_REG_IP, &ips[i]);
> > > > + ++i;
> > > > + }
> > > > + max_stack = i;
> > > > + for (i = max_stack - 1; i >= 0; --i)
> > > > + entry(ips[i], ui->thread, cb, arg);
> >
> > there's no check for return value of entry callback
> >
> > also I wonder would it be better to store into ips[] within
> > the single loop all the time, and iterate throught it after
> > forward/backward based on the callchain_param.order
> >
> > please check attached patch, totaly untested, probably leaking some index
> > ;-)
> >
> > any chance this could be done also for util/unwind-libdw.c ?
>
> That patch looks much better than mine. I'll try it out later next week and
> will also have a look at util/unwind-libdw.c. Question: How can I test the
So, you tried this patch, right? Jiri, have you submitted this in some
other message I missed?
- Arnaldo
> behavior of the latter? Do I need to uninstall libunwind, or can I change the
> unwinder at runtime somehow (env var?).
>
> Also, are there unit tests for this behavior somewhere?
> --
> Milian Wolff | milian.wo...@kdab.com | Software Engineer
> KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
> Tel: +49-30-521325470
> KDAB - The Qt Experts
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
