Em Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:16:32PM +0200, Mark Wielaard escreveu: > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:46 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch: > > > > commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6 > > Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wo...@kdab.com> > > Date: Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200 > > > > perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw > > > > So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before > > the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common > > scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still > > interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing > > perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding. > > > > If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing. > > Thanks! No, I didn't have that patch (*) yet. It makes a huge > difference. With that, Paolo's patch and the elfutils libdw powerpc64 > fallback unwinder patch, it looks like I get user stack traces for > everything now on ppc64le.
Can I take that as a Tested-by: you? - Arnaldo > Cheers, > > Mark > > (*) It just this one-liner, but what a difference that makes: > > --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c > @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int unwind__get_entries(unwind_entry_cb_t cb, void *arg, > > err = dwfl_getthread_frames(ui->dwfl, thread->tid, frame_callback, > ui); > > - if (err && !ui->max_stack) > + if (err && ui->max_stack != max_stack) > err = 0; > > /*
