Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190418160730.11901-1-kasong@redhat.com> <20190419005821.ttlpav7gviaed7am@treble>
 <CACPcB9fsYqs+xaj6w6ExKdpi-Pk4RqiD5HxTyURpee_arYQANg@mail.gmail.com> <20190419094313.GO7905@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190419094313.GO7905@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Kairui Song <kasong@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:47:18 +0800
Message-ID: <CACPcB9dKmH4oNR1fAwGndoPMiZsgfFve4g2_d26pYTByGrt75w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] perf/x86: make perf callchain work without CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:43 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:17:49AM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:58 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I still don't like using regs->bp because it results in different code
> > > paths for FP and ORC.  In the FP case, the regs are treated like real
> > > regs even though they're fake.
> > >
> > > Something like the below would be much simpler.  Would this work?  I don't
> > > know if any other code relies on the fake regs->bp or regs->sp.
> >
> > Works perfectly. My only concern is that FP path used to work very
> > well, not sure it's a good idea to change it, and this may bring some
> > extra overhead for FP path.
>
> Given Josh wrote all that code, I'm fairly sure it is still OK :-)
>
> But also looking at the code in unwind_frame.c, __unwind_start() seems
> to pretty much do what the removed caller_frame_pointer() did (when
> .regs=NULL) but better.
>

OK, with FP we will also need to do a few more extra unwinding,
previously it start directly from the frame of the trace point, now
have to trace back to the trace point first.
If that's fine I could post another update (that will be pretty much
just copy&paste from the Josh's code he posted :P , is this OK?)


--
Best Regards,
Kairui Song