On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:24:53PM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:
Hi Jiri,
On 7 May 2014 14:06, Jiri Olsa jolsa@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 05:26:18PM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:
SNIP
there's a memory leak of 'buf' already fixed fox x86:
perf tests x86: Fix memory leak in sample_ustack() commit 763d7f5f2718f085bab5a9e63308349728f3ad12 Author: Masanari Iida standby24x7@gmail.com Date: Sun Apr 20 00:16:41 2014 +0900
jirka
Ok
Here is the diff between the x86 and the ARM implementations: $ diff -urN tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.c --- tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c 2014-05-06 17:31:17.507961045 +0200 +++ tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.c 2014-05-06 16:52:00.589776839 +0200 @@ -21,11 +21,12 @@ return -1; }
- sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP];
- sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_X86_SP];
- map = map_groups__find(&thread->mg, MAP__FUNCTION, (u64) sp);
- map = map_groups__find(thread->mg, MAP__VARIABLE, (u64) sp); if (!map) { pr_debug("failed to get stack map\n");
free(buf); return -1;Which leads to a few questions:
- the map_groups__find parameters need to be fixed too, right?
the reason for this is following commit: 6392b4e perf x86: Fix perf to use non-executable stack, again
which also adds global link flags: -Wl,-z,noexecstack so I'm guessing arm is affected too
- the free(buf) needs to be fixed,
- given that the remaining difference in the file is just a register
macro, it is worth to factor the code in a single file. Does that make sense? If worthwhile I can do that once the ARM and ARM64 support is merged in.
we can do the code factoring later here, np
thanks, jirka