lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2]: perf/x86: store user space frame-pointer value on a sample
From
Date

> On May 15, 2018, at 1:08 AM, Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>> On 09.05.2018 17:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 06:21:36PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
>>>
>>> Store user space frame-pointer value (BP register) into Perf trace
>>> on a sample for a process so the value becomes available when
>>> unwinding call stacks for functions gaining event samples.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c | 8 +++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>> index e47b2dbbdef3..8d68658eff7f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/perf_regs.c
>>> @@ -156,7 +156,13 @@ void perf_get_regs_user(struct perf_regs *regs_user,
>>
>>
>>> * Most system calls don't save these registers, don't report them.
>>
>> ^^^ that worries me and is the reason for the '-1's below. However I
>> think with all the PTI rework this might no longer be true.
>>
>> The Changelog needs to state that user_regs->bp is in fact valid and
>> ideally point to the commits that makes it so. Also this patch should
>> update that comment.
>>
>> Cc Andy who keeps better track of all that than me.
>
> Are there any thoughts so far? Feedback on the matter above is highly appreciated.

Sorry, I missed this. Can you forward the original patch? I don’t have it.
These days, system calls should save all registers, but I’m not entirely sure I want to promise that they’ll continue to do so forever.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-15 18:31    [W:0.222 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site