Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2016 23:12:06 -0800 | From | Krister Johansen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 perf/core] perf script: fix a use after free crash. |
| |
Hey Arnaldo,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:01:06PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:40:46PM -0800, Krister Johansen escreveu: > > Thanks. As part of processing this did you run into any problems? > > Would you like me to rebase against the latest perf/core and re-send the > > patch? > > Sorry for the overly long delay, trying it now after fixing up a > conflict with a recent patchkit (branch stuff) I tested it by running > 'perf top -g' and I'm getting some assertion bugs:
I appreciate you taking another stab at pulling this in. My turn to apologize for the delay.
> # perf top -g > 1.34% filemap_map_pages > - 0.59% alloc_pages_vma > 1.20% __alloc_pages_nodemask > - 5.87% 0.45% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault > - 1.94% handle_mm_fault > 1.34% filemap_map_pages > - 0.59% alloc_pages_vma > 1.22% __alloc_pages_nodemask > + 5.75% 0.03% perf [.] hist_entry_iter__add > + 4.46% 0.00% [unknown] [.] 0000000000000000 > - 4.06% 2.74% libc-2.23.so [.] _int_malloc > - 1.95% 0 > 1.94% _int_malloc > - 3.20% 0.23% perf [.] iter_add_next_cumulative_entry > - 1.49% iter_add_next_cumulative_entry > - 1.43% __hists__add_entry > 2.58% 0.01% [kernel] [k] return_from_SYSCALL_64 > 2.57% 2.55% libperl.so.5.22.2 [.] Perl_fbm_instr > - 2.54% 2.51% liblzma.so.5.2.2 [.] lzma_decode > - 2.51% lzma_decode > 2.33% 0.00% ld-2.23.so [.] _dl_sysdep_start > + 2.24% 0.04% ld-2.23.so [.] dl_main > 2.13% 0.03% [kernel] [k] ext4_readdir > 2.09% 0.01% [kernel] [k] sys_newstat > 2.08% 0.04% [kernel] [k] vfs_fstatat > 2.07% 0.02% [kernel] [k] SYSC_newstat > 2.02% 0.01% [kernel] [k] iterate_dir > - 1.96% 0.17% [kernel] [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask > - 1.37% __alloc_pages_nodemask > perf: util/map.c:246: map__exit: Assertion `!(!((&map->rb_node)->__rb_parent_color == (unsigned long)(&map->rb_node)))' failed.
Assuming that I'd failed to test 'perf top -g' I went ahead and re-ran this with the last version of the patch I sent out parented against the 4.8 STABLE branch. That didn't trigger any assertion failures for me.
Is this branch that gave you merge conflicts now in perf/core or otherwise publicly avilable? If so, I'd be happy to try to resolve any conflicts and re-test against it. The copy of the patch you sent out didn't look obviously incorrect.
Thanks,
-K
| |