Re: Wrong Perf Backtraces

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I think that I should give up and assume that all illogical repeated addresses are inlines. Thanks everybody, especially, Jirka, Milian, Arnaldo and Steven. Perhaps some day I will be back and try to dig deeper (with your hints and assistance).

On 2020-04-01 01:27, ahmadkhorrami wrote:

On 2020-03-31 19:59, Milian Wolff wrote:

On Dienstag, 31. März 2020 17:02:37 CEST ahmadkhorrami wrote:

Hi Milian,
Thanks for the detailed answer. Well, the bug you mentioned is bad news.
Because I sample using uppp. Perhaps this leads to these weird traces.
Please read the full thread from here on:

But as I said - it should be easy to check if this is really the issue are running into or not: Try to see if you see the problem when you sample without `ppp`. If not, then you can be pretty sure it's this issue. If you still see
it, then it's something different.
 Well, the problem exists even when ":uppp" is changed to ":u".

Is this a purely software bug?

I wouldn't call it that, personally. Rather, it's a limitation in the hardware and software. We would need something completely different to "fix" this, i.e. something like a deeper LBR. That's btw another alternative you could try: `perf record --call-graph lbr` and live with the short call stacks. But at least these should be correct (afaik). For me personally they are always far
too short and thus not practical to use in reality.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux