Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158.
Also includes the test suite for dwarf unwinding, by adding the arch specific test code and the perf_regs_load function.
This series depends on the following kernel patches series: - AARCH64 unwinding support [1], - ARM libdw integration [2], and on the changes from the branch for: - libdw AARCH64 unwinding support [3].
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg304483.html [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg312423.html [3] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/elfutils.git/log/?h=mjw/aarch64-unwind
Jean Pihet (3): perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM64 perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM64 perf tools: Add libdw DWARF post unwind support for ARM64
tools/perf/Makefile.perf | 2 +- tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile | 7 ++++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h | 5 +++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c | 3 +- tools/perf/tests/tests.h | 3 +- 8 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c
---
- Rebased on latest acme/perf/core git tree, - Tested on the ARMv8 Foundation emulator.
Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump buffer and populates it with current registers values, as expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org Cc: Steve Capper steve.capper@linaro.org Cc: Corey Ashford cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Frederic Weisbecker fweisbec@gmail.com Cc: Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org Cc: Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org Cc: Paul Mackerras paulus@samba.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo acme@ghostprotocols.net Cc: David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com Cc: Jiri Olsa jolsa@redhat.com --- tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile | 1 + tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h | 2 ++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o endif ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o endif diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h index 2359546..1e052f1 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ #define PERF_REG_IP PERF_REG_ARM64_PC #define PERF_REG_SP PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); + static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id) { switch (id) { diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S new file mode 100644 index 0000000..92ab968 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +#include <linux/linkage.h> + +/* + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); + * + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values, + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them: + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function + * is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR, + * - the current SP (not touched by this function), + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the + * value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will + * be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries. + */ + +.text +.type perf_regs_load,%function +ENTRY(perf_regs_load) + stp x0, x1, [x0], #16 // store x0..x29 + stp x2, x3, [x0], #16 + stp x4, x5, [x0], #16 + stp x6, x7, [x0], #16 + stp x8, x9, [x0], #16 + stp x10, x11, [x0], #16 + stp x12, x13, [x0], #16 + stp x14, x15, [x0], #16 + stp x16, x17, [x0], #16 + stp x18, x19, [x0], #16 + stp x20, x21, [x0], #16 + stp x22, x23, [x0], #16 + stp x24, x25, [x0], #16 + stp x26, x27, [x0], #16 + stp x28, x29, [x0], #16 + mov x1, sp + stp x30, x1, [x0], #16 // store lr and sp + str x30, [x0] // store pc as lr in order to skip the call + // to this function + ret +ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
Hi Jean,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
Is it guaranteed that this function is always invoked with a branch with link instruction, or is that just what current compiler versions are doing? I couldn't see where we would get that guarantee from.
If it is called with a branch with link, then the LR value will be the PC at call time + 4, rather than just the exact PC at call time. If not then we don't have a guaranteed relationship between the PC at call time and the current LR value.
If the only place that perf_regs_load is used is a single test which doesn't care about the precise PC at the time of the call, then it's probably OK to use the LR value, but we should be careful to document what the faked-up PC actually is and how we expect it to be used.
It might be better to word this a "store the lr in place of the pc". To me at least the current wording implies the opposite of what the code seems to be doing.
Cheers, Mark.
Hi Mark,
On 21 March 2014 16:11, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
The current compiler implements the call as a bl instruction.
The code is only used by an unwinding test. The unwinding code resolves the function name from an address range found in the dwarf information so in principle it is ok to use the PC/LR at the time of the call to a function.
Is the comment above OK or do you want an update of the code as well?
Ok the last comment can be updated.
Thanks! Jean
Hi Mark,
ping on this series, see comment below.
On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org wrote:
What do you think?
Regards, Jean
Hi Mark, Will,
Ping on this series. Can you please check? I
Regards, Jean
On 25 March 2014 16:23, Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
Hi Mark, Will,
Hi Jean,
Ping on this series. Can you please check? I
Do you have a pointer to the latest version of your code please? The email backlog I have seems to end with MarkR saying he would take a look.
Will
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:37:44AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
The last posting I saw was [1-6]. The lack of reply is my fault, as I lost track of the thread.
Cheers, Mark.
[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241470.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241467.html [3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/242396.html [4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/242998.html [5] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241466.html [6] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/241468.html
Hi Jean,
Apologies for the delay on this.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:23:26PM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
While I don't think we can rely on the compiler using a bl to call the function it shouldn't matter here if we only care about the LR value being an address within the caller, as it doesn't look amenable to tail call optimization.
If we just need an (arbitrary) address within the caller, a comment update should be fine.
Ok, cheers.
With those changes I think this looks fine.
Thanks, Mark.
On 22 April 2014 15:42, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
Yes that is the idea;
Ok let me send a refreshed version in a bit. If the wording is Ok I will refresh the ARM patches for the same topic and re-submit them.
Thanks, Mark.
Thanks, Jean
Introducing perf_regs_load function, which is going to be used for dwarf unwind test in following patches.
It takes single argument as a pointer to the regs dump buffer and populates it with current registers values, as expected by the perf built-in unwinding test.
Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org Cc: Steve Capper steve.capper@linaro.org Cc: Corey Ashford cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Frederic Weisbecker fweisbec@gmail.com Cc: Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org Cc: Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org Cc: Paul Mackerras paulus@samba.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo acme@ghostprotocols.net Cc: David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com Cc: Jiri Olsa jolsa@redhat.com --- tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile | 1 + tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h | 2 ++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile index 67e9b3d..9b8f87e 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o endif ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o endif diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h index 2359546..1e052f1 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ #define PERF_REG_IP PERF_REG_ARM64_PC #define PERF_REG_SP PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
+void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); + static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id) { switch (id) { diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S new file mode 100644 index 0000000..40b8b99 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/regs_load.S @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +#include <linux/linkage.h> + +/* + * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); + * + * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values, + * in the way the perf built-in unwinding test expects them, e.g. an address + * within the caller: + * - the PC at the time at the call to this function. Since this function + * is called using a bl instruction, the PC value is taken from LR, + * - the current SP (not touched by this function), + * - the current value of LR is merely retrieved and stored because the + * value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will + * be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries. + */ + +.text +.type perf_regs_load,%function +ENTRY(perf_regs_load) + stp x0, x1, [x0], #16 // store x0..x29 + stp x2, x3, [x0], #16 + stp x4, x5, [x0], #16 + stp x6, x7, [x0], #16 + stp x8, x9, [x0], #16 + stp x10, x11, [x0], #16 + stp x12, x13, [x0], #16 + stp x14, x15, [x0], #16 + stp x16, x17, [x0], #16 + stp x18, x19, [x0], #16 + stp x20, x21, [x0], #16 + stp x22, x23, [x0], #16 + stp x24, x25, [x0], #16 + stp x26, x27, [x0], #16 + stp x28, x29, [x0], #16 + mov x1, sp + stp x30, x1, [x0], #16 // store lr and sp + str x30, [x0] // store lr as the PC in order to skip the call + // to this function + ret +ENDPROC(perf_regs_load)
Hi WIll, Mark,
Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?
Cheers, Jean
On 28 April 2014 15:12, Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:19:38AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
Hi WIll, Mark,
Ping on this series. Can you please check? Is the refreshed patch OK?
Fine by me, as long as it's not reused outside of this test :)
Will
Hi Will,
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com wrote:
Great! Is there some precaution to avoid a mis-reuse?
Other than that, which tree are the patches going to?
Cheers, Jean
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:07:11AM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
Hopefully your comment will be enough.
Other than that, which tree are the patches going to?
They're all under perf/tools/, so they should go via that tree.
Will
Adding dwarf unwind test, that setups live machine data over the perf test thread and does the remote unwind.
Need to use -fno-optimize-sibling-calls for test compilation, otherwise 'krava_*' function calls are optimized into jumps and ommited from the stack unwind.
Cc: Jiri Olsa jolsa@redhat.com Cc: Corey Ashford cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Frederic Weisbecker fweisbec@gmail.com Cc: Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org Cc: Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org Cc: Paul Mackerras paulus@samba.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo acme@ghostprotocols.net Cc: David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org --- tools/perf/Makefile.perf | 2 +- tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile | 1 + tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h | 3 ++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c | 3 +- tools/perf/tests/tests.h | 3 +- 6 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf index f281c4f..f9c8808 100644 --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/code-reading.o LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/sample-parsing.o LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/parse-no-sample-id-all.o ifndef NO_DWARF_UNWIND -ifeq ($(ARCH),$(filter $(ARCH),x86 arm)) +ifeq ($(ARCH),$(filter $(ARCH),x86 arm arm64)) LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)tests/dwarf-unwind.o endif endif diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile index 9b8f87e..221f21d 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ endif ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/dwarf-unwind.o endif diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h index 1e052f1..e74df99 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@ #define PERF_REG_IP PERF_REG_ARM64_PC #define PERF_REG_SP PERF_REG_ARM64_SP
+#define PERF_REGS_MAX PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX +#define PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_64 + void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs);
static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id) diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0aa64f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +#include <string.h> +#include "perf_regs.h" +#include "thread.h" +#include "map.h" +#include "event.h" +#include "tests/tests.h" + +#define STACK_SIZE 8192 + +static int sample_ustack(struct perf_sample *sample, + struct thread *thread, u64 *regs) +{ + struct stack_dump *stack = &sample->user_stack; + struct map *map; + unsigned long sp; + u64 stack_size, *buf; + + buf = malloc(STACK_SIZE); + if (!buf) { + pr_debug("failed to allocate sample uregs data\n"); + return -1; + } + + sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP]; + + map = map_groups__find(&thread->mg, MAP__FUNCTION, (u64) sp); + if (!map) { + pr_debug("failed to get stack map\n"); + return -1; + } + + stack_size = map->end - sp; + stack_size = stack_size > STACK_SIZE ? STACK_SIZE : stack_size; + + memcpy(buf, (void *) sp, stack_size); + stack->data = (char *) buf; + stack->size = stack_size; + return 0; +} + +int test__arch_unwind_sample(struct perf_sample *sample, + struct thread *thread) +{ + struct regs_dump *regs = &sample->user_regs; + u64 *buf; + + buf = malloc(sizeof(u64) * PERF_REGS_MAX); + if (!buf) { + pr_debug("failed to allocate sample uregs data\n"); + return -1; + } + + perf_regs_load(buf); + regs->abi = PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI; + regs->regs = buf; + regs->mask = PERF_REGS_MASK; + + return sample_ustack(sample, thread, buf); +} diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c index 167d527..d802215 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c +++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c @@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ static struct test { .desc = "Test parsing with no sample_id_all bit set", .func = test__parse_no_sample_id_all, }, -#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__) +#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || \ + defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__) #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT { .desc = "Test dwarf unwind", diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/tests.h b/tools/perf/tests/tests.h index 0c89cfe..e7bfddb 100644 --- a/tools/perf/tests/tests.h +++ b/tools/perf/tests/tests.h @@ -42,7 +42,8 @@ int test__keep_tracking(void); int test__parse_no_sample_id_all(void); int test__dwarf_unwind(void);
-#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__) +#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || \ + defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__) #ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT struct thread; struct perf_sample;
Adding libdw DWARF post unwind support, which is part of elfutils-devel/libdw-dev package from version 0.158.
Note: the libdw code needs some support for dwarf unwinding on ARM64, this code is submitted seperately on the elfutils ML.
The new code is contained in unwin-libdw.c object, and implements unwind__get_entries unwind interface function.
Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet jean.pihet@linaro.org Cc: Jiri Olsa jolsa@redhat.com Cc: Corey Ashford cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Frederic Weisbecker fweisbec@gmail.com Cc: Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org Cc: Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org Cc: Paul Mackerras paulus@samba.org Cc: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo acme@ghostprotocols.net Cc: David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com --- tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile | 5 +++ tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile index 221f21d..09d6215 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/Makefile @@ -4,6 +4,11 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/dwarf-regs.o endif ifndef NO_LIBUNWIND LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libunwind.o +endif +ifndef NO_LIBDW_DWARF_UNWIND +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/util/unwind-libdw.o +endif +ifndef NO_DWARF_UNWIND LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/regs_load.o LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)arch/$(ARCH)/tests/dwarf-unwind.o endif diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d24958 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/unwind-libdw.c @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +#include <elfutils/libdwfl.h> +#include "../../util/unwind-libdw.h" +#include "../../util/perf_regs.h" + +bool libdw__arch_set_initial_registers(Dwfl_Thread *thread, void *arg) +{ + struct unwind_info *ui = arg; + struct regs_dump *user_regs = &ui->sample->user_regs; + Dwarf_Word dwarf_regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX]; + +#define REG(r) ({ \ + Dwarf_Word val = 0; \ + perf_reg_value(&val, user_regs, PERF_REG_ARM64_##r); \ + val; \ +}) + + dwarf_regs[0] = REG(X0); + dwarf_regs[1] = REG(X1); + dwarf_regs[2] = REG(X2); + dwarf_regs[3] = REG(X3); + dwarf_regs[4] = REG(X4); + dwarf_regs[5] = REG(X5); + dwarf_regs[6] = REG(X6); + dwarf_regs[7] = REG(X7); + dwarf_regs[8] = REG(X8); + dwarf_regs[9] = REG(X9); + dwarf_regs[10] = REG(X10); + dwarf_regs[11] = REG(X11); + dwarf_regs[12] = REG(X12); + dwarf_regs[13] = REG(X13); + dwarf_regs[14] = REG(X14); + dwarf_regs[15] = REG(X15); + dwarf_regs[16] = REG(X16); + dwarf_regs[17] = REG(X17); + dwarf_regs[18] = REG(X18); + dwarf_regs[19] = REG(X19); + dwarf_regs[20] = REG(X20); + dwarf_regs[21] = REG(X21); + dwarf_regs[22] = REG(X22); + dwarf_regs[23] = REG(X23); + dwarf_regs[24] = REG(X24); + dwarf_regs[25] = REG(X25); + dwarf_regs[26] = REG(X26); + dwarf_regs[27] = REG(X27); + dwarf_regs[28] = REG(X28); + dwarf_regs[29] = REG(X29); + dwarf_regs[30] = REG(LR); + dwarf_regs[31] = REG(SP); + dwarf_regs[32] = REG(PC); + + return dwfl_thread_state_registers(thread, 0, PERF_REG_ARM64_MAX, + dwarf_regs); +}
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Jean Pihet -
Jean Pihet -
Mark Rutland -
Will Deacon