Patchwork Perf not resolving all symbols, showing 0x7ffffxxx

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Martin Hicks
Date Oct. 16, 2013, 3:05 p.m.
Message ID <CAJUS3Xm6-Mojvu6WkZNT+31oDazcx5HCr3n0asNqv3+uFbO0JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/283983/
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Michael Ellerman
Headers show

Comments

Martin Hicks - Oct. 16, 2013, 3:05 p.m.
Actually, I was wrong, the mpc8379 is an e300c4.

So it seems clear to me that we compile in the book3s code because
this is an 83xx CPU part.  I also see that Kconfig knows that I have
an core-fsl-emb but we don't actually compile the PMU backend for it
because there's no support for anything but e500.

mort@chinook:~/src/s4v2-glibc/linux-mpc$ grep PERF .config
CONFIG_FSL_EMB_PERFMON=y
CONFIG_PPC_PERF_CTRS=y
CONFIG_HAVE_PERF_EVENTS=y
CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS=y
# CONFIG_DEBUG_PERF_USE_VMALLOC is not set
mort@chinook:~/src/s4v2-glibc/linux-mpc$ grep BOOK3S .config
CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_32=y
CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S=y

more below...

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 15:22 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 14:53 -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 14:44 -0400, Martin Hicks wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > This is an e300 core right ? (603...). Do that have an SIAR at all
>> > > > (Scott ?)
>> > >
>> > > Yes, e300c3.
>> >
>> > Ok so I have a hard time figuring out how that patch can make a
>> > difference since for all I can see, there is no perf backend upstream
>> > for e300 at all :-(
>> >
>> > I must certainly be missing something ... Scott, can you have a look ?
>>
>> e300c3 has a core-fsl-emb style performance monitor (though Linux
>> doesn't support it yet).  If a bug was bisected to a change in
>> core-book3s.c, then it's probably a coincidence due to moving code
>> around.

CONFIG_PPC_PERF_CTRS seems to give the mpc8379 some kind of basic
performance measuring.  Is this through dummy_perf() in
arch/powerpc/kernel/pmc.c?

>
> Mort, can you see if just that change is enough to cause the problem ?

It is not.  The patch that does get IPs working again in my 3.11 tree
is this one:



mh
Benjamin Herrenschmidt - Oct. 16, 2013, 6:42 p.m.
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 11:05 -0400, Martin Hicks wrote:
> Actually, I was wrong, the mpc8379 is an e300c4.
> 
> So it seems clear to me that we compile in the book3s code because
> this is an 83xx CPU part.  I also see that Kconfig knows that I have
> an core-fsl-emb but we don't actually compile the PMU backend for it
> because there's no support for anything but e500.
> 
> mort@chinook:~/src/s4v2-glibc/linux-mpc$ grep PERF .config
> CONFIG_FSL_EMB_PERFMON=y
> CONFIG_PPC_PERF_CTRS=y
> CONFIG_HAVE_PERF_EVENTS=y
> CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS=y
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_PERF_USE_VMALLOC is not set
> mort@chinook:~/src/s4v2-glibc/linux-mpc$ grep BOOK3S .config
> CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_32=y
> CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S=y
> 
> more below...
> 
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 15:22 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 14:53 -0500, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 14:44 -0400, Martin Hicks wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This is an e300 core right ? (603...). Do that have an SIAR at all
> >> > > > (Scott ?)
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, e300c3.
> >> >
> >> > Ok so I have a hard time figuring out how that patch can make a
> >> > difference since for all I can see, there is no perf backend upstream
> >> > for e300 at all :-(
> >> >
> >> > I must certainly be missing something ... Scott, can you have a look ?
> >>
> >> e300c3 has a core-fsl-emb style performance monitor (though Linux
> >> doesn't support it yet).  If a bug was bisected to a change in
> >> core-book3s.c, then it's probably a coincidence due to moving code
> >> around.
> 
> CONFIG_PPC_PERF_CTRS seems to give the mpc8379 some kind of basic
> performance measuring.  Is this through dummy_perf() in
> arch/powerpc/kernel/pmc.c?
> 
> >
> > Mort, can you see if just that change is enough to cause the problem ?
> 
> It is not.  The patch that does get IPs working again in my 3.11 tree
> is this one:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
> index eeae308..9a3f572 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
> @@ -122,10 +122,6 @@ void power_pmu_flush_branch_stack(void) {}
>  static inline void power_pmu_bhrb_read(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuhw) {}
>  #endif /* CONFIG_PPC32 */
> 
> -static bool regs_use_siar(struct pt_regs *regs)
> -{
> -       return !!regs->result;
> -}

Can you try instead just chaning regs_use_siar to return false always ?
Do that help ?

Cheers,
Ben.

>  /*
>   * Things that are specific to 64-bit implementations.
> @@ -1802,14 +1798,13 @@ unsigned long perf_misc_flags(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   */
>  unsigned long perf_instruction_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
> -       bool use_siar = regs_use_siar(regs);
> -
> -       if (use_siar && siar_valid(regs))
> -               return mfspr(SPRN_SIAR) + perf_ip_adjust(regs);
> -       else if (use_siar)
> -               return 0;               // no valid instruction pointer
> -       else
> +       unsigned long mmcra = regs->dsisr;
> +       if (TRAP(regs) != 0xf00)
> +               return regs->nip;
> +       if ((ppmu->flags & PPMU_NO_CONT_SAMPLING) &&
> +           !(mmcra & MMCRA_SAMPLE_ENABLE))
>                 return regs->nip;
> +       return mfspr(SPRN_SIAR) + perf_ip_adjust(regs);
>  }
> 
>  static bool pmc_overflow_power7(unsigned long val)
> 
> 
> mh
>

Patch

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
index eeae308..9a3f572 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
@@ -122,10 +122,6 @@  void power_pmu_flush_branch_stack(void) {}
 static inline void power_pmu_bhrb_read(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuhw) {}
 #endif /* CONFIG_PPC32 */

-static bool regs_use_siar(struct pt_regs *regs)
-{
-       return !!regs->result;
-}

 /*
  * Things that are specific to 64-bit implementations.
@@ -1802,14 +1798,13 @@  unsigned long perf_misc_flags(struct pt_regs *regs)
  */
 unsigned long perf_instruction_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
-       bool use_siar = regs_use_siar(regs);
-
-       if (use_siar && siar_valid(regs))
-               return mfspr(SPRN_SIAR) + perf_ip_adjust(regs);
-       else if (use_siar)
-               return 0;               // no valid instruction pointer
-       else
+       unsigned long mmcra = regs->dsisr;
+       if (TRAP(regs) != 0xf00)
+               return regs->nip;
+       if ((ppmu->flags & PPMU_NO_CONT_SAMPLING) &&
+           !(mmcra & MMCRA_SAMPLE_ENABLE))
                return regs->nip;
+       return mfspr(SPRN_SIAR) + perf_ip_adjust(regs);
 }

 static bool pmc_overflow_power7(unsigned long val)