[PATCH v5 6/6] perf arm64: inject missing frames if perf-record used "--call-graph=fp"

[German Gomez]

Hi Jiri,

On 21/12/2021 09:32, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 03:45:20PM +0000, German Gomez wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +u64 get_leaf_frame_caller_aarch64(struct perf_sample *sample, struct thread *thread, int usr_idx)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +	struct entries entries = {};
>> +	struct regs_dump old_regs = sample->user_regs;
>> +
>> +	if (!get_leaf_frame_caller_enabled(sample))
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If PC and SP are not recorded, get the value of PC from the stack
>> +	 * and set its mask. SP is not used when doing the unwinding but it
>> +	 * still needs to be set to prevent failures.
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	if (!(sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_PC))) {
>> +		sample->user_regs.cache_mask |= SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_PC);
>> +		sample->user_regs.cache_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_PC] = sample->callchain->ips[usr_idx+1];
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (!(sample->user_regs.mask & SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_SP))) {
>> +		sample->user_regs.cache_mask |= SMPL_REG_MASK(PERF_REG_ARM64_SP);
>> +		sample->user_regs.cache_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP] = 0;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = unwind__get_entries(add_entry, &entries, thread, sample, 2);
> just curious, did you try this with both unwinders libunwind/libdw?

Yes I did,

This is the program I was using:

  int a = 0;

  void leaf() {
    for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
      a *= a;
  }

  void parent() {
    leaf();
  }

  int main() {
    parent();
  }

  ... compiled with "gcc -O0 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-inline program.c"

>
> any chance you could add arm specific test for this?

I don't see a reason not to. I'll make a note for a separate patch.

>
> otherwise it looks good to me
>
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa at kernel.org>

Thanks for the review,
German