Hello, On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 06:07:59PM +0100, Jens Remus wrote: > On 2/5/2026 7:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:26:10 -0800 > > Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Namhyung Kim's related perf tools deferred callchain support can be used > >>> for testing ("perf record --call-graph fp,defer" and "perf > >>> report/script"). > >> > >> Is it possible for users to choose the unwinder - frame pointer or > >> SFrame at runtime? I feel like the option should be > >> "--call-graph sframe,defer" or just "--call-graph sframe" if it always > >> uses deferred unwinding. > > > > Currently no, and I'm not sure we want that do we? The idea is to use the > > best option that is available. Why use frame pointers if sframe is > > available and it's being called with defer? > > > > If there's no defer, then sframes are not available, so it defaults to the > > best option available (which will likely be frame pointers).
Users (me, at least) may want to compare stacktraces from FP and SFrame? > > Maybe it would make sense not to "overload" the perf record option > "--call-graph fp,defer" and use it for all deferred unwinding methods. > > What about "--call-graph defer", "--call-graph any,defer", or > "--call-graph *,defer"? Sounds better. But I think it cannot enforce "--call-graph fp,defer" to use frame pointers when SFrame is available.. Hmm. Thanks, Namhyung
