Em Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 03:37:36PM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:46 PM Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This patch series is to refactor arch related functions for register > > parsing, which follows up the discussion for v1: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230520025537.1811986-1-leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Compared to patch series v1, this patch series introduces new functions > > perf_arch_reg_{ip|sp}(), so this can allow the tool to support cross > > analysis. > > > > To verify the cross analysis, I used below steps: > > > > - Firstly, I captured perf data on Arm64 machine: > > > > $ perf record --call-graph fp -- ./test_program > > > > Or ... > > > > $ perf record --call-graph dwarf -- ./test_program > > > > Then, I also archived associated debug data: > > > > $ perf archive > > > > - Secondly, I copied the perf data file and debug tar file on my x86 > > machine: > > > > $ scp perf.data perf.data.tar.bz2 leoy@IP_ADDRESS:/target/path/ > > > > - On x86 machine, I need to build perf for support multi-arch unwinding: > > > > $ git clone http://git.savannah.gnu.org/r/libunwind.git > > $ cd libunwind > > $ autoreconf -i > > > > # Build and install libunwind aarch64: > > $ ./configure prefix=/home/leoy/Work/tools/libunwind/install/ \ > > --target=aarch64-linux-gnu CC=x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc > > $ make && make install > > > > # Build and install libunwind x86: > > $ ./configure prefix=/home/leoy/Work/tools/libunwind/install/ \ > > --target=x86_64-linux-gnu CC=x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc > > $ make && make install > > > > - Build perf tool for support multi-archs: > > > > $ cd $LINUX/tools/perf > > $ make VF=1 DEBUG=1 LIBUNWIND_DIR=/home/leoy/Work/tools/libunwind/install > > > > At the end, I verified the x86 perf tool can do cross analysis for aarch64's > > perf data file. > > > > Note, I still see x86 perf tool cannot display the complete callgraph > > for aarch64, but it should not the issue caused by this series, which > > will be addressed by separate patches. > > > > I also built this patch series on my Arm64 and x86 machines, both can > > compile perf tool successfully; but I have no chance to build other > > archs natively. > > > > Changes from v1: > > - For support cross analysis for IP/SP registers, introduced patch 0002 > > (James Clark, Ian Rogers). > > > > > > Leo Yan (6): > > perf parse-regs: Refactor arch register parsing functions > > perf parse-regs: Introduce functions perf_arch_reg_{ip|sp}() > > perf unwind: Use perf_arch_reg_{ip|sp}() to substitute macros > > perf parse-regs: Remove unused macros PERF_REG_{IP|SP} > > perf parse-regs: Remove PERF_REGS_{MAX|MASK} from common code > > perf parse-regs: Move out arch specific header from util/perf_regs.h > > Sorry for the slow review. For the series: > Acked-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Some thoughts: > uint64_t __perf_reg_ip_arm(void) > uint64_t seems like we're giving a lot of space for future register > encodings. I think some of the other functions use this size of value > due to returning a bitmap/mask, but here it isn't clear and just feels > excessive. > > Do we need the "__" prefix on all the functions? > > In Makefile.config there are NO_PERF_REGS and CONFIG_PERF_REGS then > the define HAVE_PERF_REGS_SUPPORT. Is this still relevant? If we had > an architecture with no support, couldn't it still read a perf.data > file from a supported architecture? It would be nice to remove at > least NO_PERF_REGS and HAVE_PERF_REGS_SUPPORT. > > This change is very worthwhile fix and cleanup, it didn't introduce > what is pondered above, hence the acked-by. Agreed, applied to perf-tools-next, sorry for the delay. - Arnaldo
