Hi Jiri,
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:31:47 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 11:26:31AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> >
>> > hum, where is it callee/caller mixed? with following example:
>> >
>> > ---
>> > void c(void)
>> > {
>> > }
>> >
>> > void b(void)
>> > {
>> > c();
>> > }
>> >
>> > void a(void)
>> > {
>> > b();
>> > }
>> >
>> > int main(void)
>> > {
>> > while(1) {
>> > a();
>> > b();
>> > c();
>> > }
>> > }
>> > ---
>> >
>> > for 'c' the current code will display:
>> >
>> > - 43.74% 43.74% t t [.] c
>> > ▒
>> > - __libc_start_main
>> > ▒
>> > - 86.33% main
>> > ▒
>> > 67.08% c
>> > ▒
>> > - 32.91% a
>> > ▒
>> > 99.44% c
>> > ▒
>> > - 0.56% b
>> > ▒
>> > c
>> > ▒
>> > 13.67% c
>> > ▒
>> >
>> > and with this patch:
>> >
>> > - 43.74% 43.74% t t [.] c
>> > ▒
>> > c
>> > ▒
>> >
>> >
>> > The 'c' callchain is still in caller order. IMO we should
>> > keep whole callchain here.
>>
>> The problem is not in pure self entry (that has self overhead = children
>> overhead) and pure cumulative entry (self overhead = 0). It's in mixed
>> entries, please see last two examples in the description 0/3.
>
> right, but it still affects pure entries as well
> anyway, let's see the mixed entry
>
> for 'a' the current code will display:
> - 31.97% 17.16% t t [.] a
> ▒
> - __libc_start_main
> ◆
> 81.08% a
> ▒
> - 18.92% main
> ▒
> a
> ▒
> - a
> ▒
> 85.05% c
> ▒
> - 14.91% b
> ▒
> 100.00% c
> ▒
>
> and with this patch:
> - 31.97% 17.16% t t [.] a
> ▒
> - a
> ▒
> 85.05% c
> ▒
> - 14.91% b
> ▒
> 100.00% c
> ▒
>
> so we'll miss the 'self' callchain of 'a' symbol
>
> if we want to avoid the confusion about 2 different callchains, how
> about marking them with 'self' and 'children' tags, instead of removing
> one of them, like:
>
> for 'a' the current code will display:
> - 31.97% 17.16% t t [.] a
> ▒
> - [self]
> __libc_start_main
> ◆
> 81.08% a
> ▒
> - 18.92% main
> ▒
> a
> ▒
> - [children]
> a
> ▒
> 85.05% c
> ▒
> - 14.91% b
> ▒
> 100.00% c
> ▒
I think it just adds complexity in implementation and confuses users.
Why do we keep those two callchains just for the caller mode?
I ran same code, recorded data and report it with current code. It shows
who are the callers of the symbol:
$ perf report # same as passing -g callee
Children Self Command Shared Object Symbols
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 99.98% 0.00% abc2 libc-2.17.so [.] __libc_start_main
- 79.75% 11.29% abc2 abc2 [.] main
main
__libc_start_main
- 53.07% 52.99% abc2 abc2 [.] c
- c
+ 46.12% main
+ 30.99% a
12.88% __libc_start_main
+ 10.01% b
- 34.12% 28.75% abc2 abc2 [.] b
- b
+ 52.61% main
25.93% __libc_start_main
+ 21.46% a
- 30.56% 6.78% abc2 abc2 [.] a
- a
+ 85.14% main
14.86% __libc_start_main
+ 0.17% 0.01% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] apic_timer_interrupt
+ 0.15% 0.00% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] smp_apic_timer_interrupt
+ 0.11% 0.00% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] hrtimer_interrupt
With -g caller option, the current code now shows callees and callers
altogether:
$ perf report -g caller
Children Self Command Shared Object Symbols
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 99.98% 0.00% abc2 libc-2.17.so [.] __libc_start_main
- 79.75% 11.29% abc2 abc2 [.] main
- main
+ 38.01% a
+ 35.75% c
+ 26.22% b
__libc_start_main
main
- 53.07% 52.99% abc2 abc2 [.] c
- __libc_start_main
+ 87.15% main
12.85% c
- 34.12% 28.75% abc2 abc2 [.] b
- __libc_start_main
+ 69.27% main
30.73% b
- b
98.85% c
+ 1.15% apic_timer_interrupt
- 30.56% 6.78% abc2 abc2 [.] a
- a
+ 69.15% c
+ 30.80% b
- __libc_start_main
66.86% a
+ 33.14% main
+ 0.17% 0.01% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] apic_timer_interrupt
+ 0.15% 0.00% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] smp_apic_timer_interrupt
+ 0.11% 0.00% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] hrtimer_interrupt
IMHO, it's harder to find out the right info. Even if we might add
self/children tag to the callchains, I still think it'd be better just
to trim down irrelavant info from the output.
After applying this patch, it'll only show the callees of the symbol and
I think this is what most users expect to see:
+ 99.98% 0.00% abc2 libc-2.17.so [.] __libc_start_main
- 79.75% 11.29% abc2 abc2 [.] main
- main
+ 38.01% a
+ 35.75% c
+ 26.22% b
- 53.07% 52.99% abc2 abc2 [.] c
- c
+ 100.00% apic_timer_interrupt
- 34.12% 28.75% abc2 abc2 [.] b
- b
98.85% c
+ 1.15% apic_timer_interrupt
- 30.56% 6.78% abc2 abc2 [.] a
- a
+ 69.15% c
+ 30.80% b
+ 0.17% 0.01% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] apic_timer_interrupt
+ 0.15% 0.00% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] smp_apic_timer_interrupt
+ 0.11% 0.00% abc2 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] hrtimer_interrupt
If you want to see the callers of 'c', you may go to above entries (main
and __libc_start_main in this case) and then follow the callchains. If
it's not enough, you can re-run perf report with -g callee option.
Now It becomes a problem of dispalying whether callers or callees of
symbols rather than which order (callee-first or caller-first) it
prints. So what current name (caller and callee) does is exactly the
opposite. :-/
Btw I can see some other bugs in the callchain result too and will try
to fix it soon.
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
