Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:24:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 03:39:03PM +0800, leo@linaro.org escreveu: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19:44AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > > > > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > > > > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > > > > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > > > > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > > > > at the first place. How about you think for this? > > > > > > Likely it already works for CoreSight > > > > I think Kim played with this patch series and he also pointed me for > > this series. > > > > > I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't > > > know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is > > > often not helpful. > > > > > > If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit > > > a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these > > > two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. > > > > Okay, agree. > > > > Actually I applied your patch series v6 on the perf latest core branch > > and tested on Arm Juno board, I observed there have couple issues, one > > is CoreSight trace data doesn't support timestamp so I need to use > > '-F,-time' to workaround the command failure; another issue is now > > CoreSight is absent to set sample flags so perf fails to resolve > > symbols [1]; these two issues are only related with CoreSight decoder > > and it's no matter with this patch, so I didn't mention in my previous > > replying. > > Could I take that as a Tested-by? I.e. you actually applied the patches, > run it and saw that it works as advertised, right? Yes, Arnaldo. This is my testing tag: Tested-by: Leo Yan > - Arnaldo > > > I need a bit more time to work out more formal CoreSight fixing patches > > and will send for reviewing (also will include one patch to clarifying > > Arm Coresight support in doc as suggested). > > > > Thanks, > > Leo Yan > > > > [1] > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-script.c?h=perf/core#n1128
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:24:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 03:39:03PM +0800, leo@linaro.org escreveu: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19:44AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > > > > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > > > > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > > > > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > > > > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > > > > at the first place. How about you think for this? > > > > > > Likely it already works for CoreSight > > > > I think Kim played with this patch series and he also pointed me for > > this series. > > > > > I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't > > > know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is > > > often not helpful. > > > > > > If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit > > > a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these > > > two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. > > > > Okay, agree. > > > > Actually I applied your patch series v6 on the perf latest core branch > > and tested on Arm Juno board, I observed there have couple issues, one > > is CoreSight trace data doesn't support timestamp so I need to use > > '-F,-time' to workaround the command failure; another issue is now > > CoreSight is absent to set sample flags so perf fails to resolve > > symbols [1]; these two issues are only related with CoreSight decoder > > and it's no matter with this patch, so I didn't mention in my previous > > replying. > > Could I take that as a Tested-by? I.e. you actually applied the patches, > run it and saw that it works as advertised, right? Yes, Arnaldo. This is my testing tag: Tested-by: Leo Yan > - Arnaldo > > > I need a bit more time to work out more formal CoreSight fixing patches > > and will send for reviewing (also will include one patch to clarifying > > Arm Coresight support in doc as suggested). > > > > Thanks, > > Leo Yan > > > > [1] > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-script.c?h=perf/core#n1128
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
Em Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 03:39:03PM +0800, leo@linaro.org escreveu: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19:44AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > > > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > > > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > > > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > > > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > > > at the first place. How about you think for this? > > > > Likely it already works for CoreSight > > I think Kim played with this patch series and he also pointed me for > this series. > > > I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't > > know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is > > often not helpful. > > > > If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit > > a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these > > two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. > > Okay, agree. > > Actually I applied your patch series v6 on the perf latest core branch > and tested on Arm Juno board, I observed there have couple issues, one > is CoreSight trace data doesn't support timestamp so I need to use > '-F,-time' to workaround the command failure; another issue is now > CoreSight is absent to set sample flags so perf fails to resolve > symbols [1]; these two issues are only related with CoreSight decoder > and it's no matter with this patch, so I didn't mention in my previous > replying. Could I take that as a Tested-by? I.e. you actually applied the patches, run it and saw that it works as advertised, right? - Arnaldo > I need a bit more time to work out more formal CoreSight fixing patches > and will send for reviewing (also will include one patch to clarifying > Arm Coresight support in doc as suggested). > > Thanks, > Leo Yan > > [1] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-script.c?h=perf/core#n1128
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
Em Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 03:39:03PM +0800, leo@linaro.org escreveu: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19:44AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > > > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > > > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > > > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > > > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > > > at the first place. How about you think for this? > > > > Likely it already works for CoreSight > > I think Kim played with this patch series and he also pointed me for > this series. > > > I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't > > know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is > > often not helpful. > > > > If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit > > a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these > > two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. > > Okay, agree. > > Actually I applied your patch series v6 on the perf latest core branch > and tested on Arm Juno board, I observed there have couple issues, one > is CoreSight trace data doesn't support timestamp so I need to use > '-F,-time' to workaround the command failure; another issue is now > CoreSight is absent to set sample flags so perf fails to resolve > symbols [1]; these two issues are only related with CoreSight decoder > and it's no matter with this patch, so I didn't mention in my previous > replying. Could I take that as a Tested-by? I.e. you actually applied the patches, run it and saw that it works as advertised, right? - Arnaldo > I need a bit more time to work out more formal CoreSight fixing patches > and will send for reviewing (also will include one patch to clarifying > Arm Coresight support in doc as suggested). > > Thanks, > Leo Yan > > [1] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-script.c?h=perf/core#n1128
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19:44AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > > at the first place. How about you think for this? > > Likely it already works for CoreSight I think Kim played with this patch series and he also pointed me for this series. > I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't > know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is > often not helpful. > > If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit > a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these > two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. Okay, agree. Actually I applied your patch series v6 on the perf latest core branch and tested on Arm Juno board, I observed there have couple issues, one is CoreSight trace data doesn't support timestamp so I need to use '-F,-time' to workaround the command failure; another issue is now CoreSight is absent to set sample flags so perf fails to resolve symbols [1]; these two issues are only related with CoreSight decoder and it's no matter with this patch, so I didn't mention in my previous replying. I need a bit more time to work out more formal CoreSight fixing patches and will send for reviewing (also will include one patch to clarifying Arm Coresight support in doc as suggested). Thanks, Leo Yan [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-script.c?h=perf/core#n1128
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:19:44AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > > at the first place. How about you think for this? > > Likely it already works for CoreSight I think Kim played with this patch series and he also pointed me for this series. > I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't > know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is > often not helpful. > > If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit > a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these > two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. Okay, agree. Actually I applied your patch series v6 on the perf latest core branch and tested on Arm Juno board, I observed there have couple issues, one is CoreSight trace data doesn't support timestamp so I need to use '-F,-time' to workaround the command failure; another issue is now CoreSight is absent to set sample flags so perf fails to resolve symbols [1]; these two issues are only related with CoreSight decoder and it's no matter with this patch, so I didn't mention in my previous replying. I need a bit more time to work out more formal CoreSight fixing patches and will send for reviewing (also will include one patch to clarifying Arm Coresight support in doc as suggested). Thanks, Leo Yan [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/builtin-script.c?h=perf/core#n1128
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
> Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > at the first place. How about you think for this? Likely it already works for CoreSight I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is often not helpful. If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. -Andi
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
> Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, > other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features > as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we > enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; > alternatively we can use more general description for these two options > at the first place. How about you think for this? Likely it already works for CoreSight I specified intel_pt, because if we just say traces the users won't know what PMU to specify for record. Being too abstract is often not helpful. If someone successfully tests it on CoreSight they could submit a patch to the documentation to add "or " to these two cases. That would make it then clear for those users too. -Andi
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
Hi Andi, On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:05:38AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > From: Andi Kleen > > Add short cut options to print PT call trace and call-ret-trace, > for calls and call and returns. Roughly corresponds to ftrace > function tracer and function graph tracer. > > Just makes these common use cases nicer to use. > > % perf record -a -e intel_pt// sleep 1 > % perf script --call-trace > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_pmu_enable > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > __x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > event_filter_match > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > group_sched_in > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > __x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > event_sched_in.isra.107 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_event_set_state.part.71 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_event_update_time > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_pmu_disable > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_log_itrace_start > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > __x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_event_update_userpage > > % perf script --call-ret-trace > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: tr strt ([unknown]) > pt_config > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])pt_config > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])pt_event_add > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_enable > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_nop_void > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_sched_in.isra.107 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])__x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_nop_int > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])group_sched_in > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_filter_match > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_filter_match > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])group_sched_in > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])__x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_nop_txn > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_sched_in.isra.107 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_event_set_state.part.71 > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen > --- > v2: Print errors, power, ptwrite too > --- > tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt | 7 +++ > tools/perf/builtin-script.c | 24 > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > index 00c655ab4968..805baabd238e 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > +++ b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > @@ -390,6 +390,13 @@ include::itrace.txt[] > --xed:: > Run xed disassembler on output. Requires installing the xed > disassembler. > > +--call-trace:: > + Show call stream for intel_pt traces. The CPUs are interleaved, but > + can be filtered with -C. > + > +--call-ret-trace:: > + Show call and return stream for intel_pt traces. Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; alternatively we can use more general description for these two options at the first place. How about you think for this? Except this question, this patch looks good for me. Thanks, Leo Yan > SEE ALSO > > linkperf:perf-record[1], linkperf:perf-script-perl[1], > diff --git
Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] tools, perf, script: Add --call-trace and --call-ret-trace
Hi Andi, On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:05:38AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > From: Andi Kleen > > Add short cut options to print PT call trace and call-ret-trace, > for calls and call and returns. Roughly corresponds to ftrace > function tracer and function graph tracer. > > Just makes these common use cases nicer to use. > > % perf record -a -e intel_pt// sleep 1 > % perf script --call-trace > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_pmu_enable > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > __x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > event_filter_match > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > group_sched_in > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > __x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > event_sched_in.isra.107 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_event_set_state.part.71 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_event_update_time > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_pmu_disable > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_log_itrace_start > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > __x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: ([kernel.kallsyms]) > perf_event_update_userpage > > % perf script --call-ret-trace > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: tr strt ([unknown]) > pt_config > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])pt_config > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])pt_event_add > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_enable > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_nop_void > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_sched_in.isra.107 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])__x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_nop_int > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])group_sched_in > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_filter_match > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_filter_match > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])group_sched_in > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])__x86_indirect_thunk_rax > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: return > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_pmu_nop_txn > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])event_sched_in.isra.107 > perf 900 [000] 194167.205652203: call > ([kernel.kallsyms])perf_event_set_state.part.71 > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen > --- > v2: Print errors, power, ptwrite too > --- > tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt | 7 +++ > tools/perf/builtin-script.c | 24 > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > index 00c655ab4968..805baabd238e 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > +++ b/tools/perf/Documentation/perf-script.txt > @@ -390,6 +390,13 @@ include::itrace.txt[] > --xed:: > Run xed disassembler on output. Requires installing the xed > disassembler. > > +--call-trace:: > + Show call stream for intel_pt traces. The CPUs are interleaved, but > + can be filtered with -C. > + > +--call-ret-trace:: > + Show call and return stream for intel_pt traces. Seems to me, these two features are _NOT_ only benefit for intel_pt, other hardware tracing (e.g. Arm CoreSight) can enable these features as well. This patch is to document only for intel_pt, later if we enable this feature on Arm platform we need to change the doc; alternatively we can use more general description for these two options at the first place. How about you think for this? Except this question, this patch looks good for me. Thanks, Leo Yan > SEE ALSO > > linkperf:perf-record[1], linkperf:perf-script-perl[1], > diff --git
