On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:09:26 -0800 Ian Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to be clear. I don't think the behavior of using frame pointers > should change. Deferral has downsides, for example: > > $ perf record -g -a sleep 1 The biggest advantage of the deferred callstack is that there's much less duplication of data in the ring buffer. Especially when you have deep stacks and long system calls. Now, if we have frame pointers enabled, we could possibly add a feature to the deferred unwinder where it could try to do the deferred immediately and if it faults it then waits until going back to user space. This means that the frame pointer version should work (unless the user space stack was swapped out). > > Without deferral kernel stack traces will contain both kernel and user > traces. With deferral the user stack trace is only generated when the > system call returns and so there is a chance for kernel stack traces > to be missing their user part. An obvious behavioral change. I think > for what you are doing here we can have an option something like: > > $ perf record --call-graph fp-deferred -a sleep 1 I would be OK with this but I would prefer a much shorter name. Adding 20 characters to the command line will likely keep people from using it. -- Steve
