Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] perf annotate: add powerpc support

From: Ravi Bangoria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:13:22 +0530

Thanks Michael for your suggestion.

On Thursday 30 June 2016 11:51 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 11:44 +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
>> index 36a5825..b87eac7 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/annotate.c
>> @@ -476,6 +481,125 @@ static int ins__cmp(const void *a, const void *b)
> ...
>> +
>> +static struct ins *ins__find_powerpc(const char *name)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +	struct ins *ins;
>> +	struct ins_ops *ops;
>> +	static struct instructions_powerpc head;
>> +	static bool list_initialized;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * - Interested only if instruction starts with 'b'.
>> +	 * - Few start with 'b', but aren't branch instructions.
>> +	 * - Let's also ignore instructions involving 'ctr' and
>> +	 *   'tar' since target branch addresses for those can't
>> +	 *   be determined statically.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (name[0] != 'b'             ||
>> +	    !strncmp(name, "bcd", 3)   ||
>> +	    !strncmp(name, "brinc", 5) ||
>> +	    !strncmp(name, "bper", 4)  ||
>> +	    strstr(name, "ctr")        ||
>> +	    strstr(name, "tar"))
>> +		return NULL;
> It would be good if 'bctr' was at least recognised as a branch, even if we
> can't determine the target. They are very common.

We can not show arrow for this since we don't know the target location.
can you please suggest how you intends perf to display bctr?

bctr can be classified into two variants -- 'bctr' and 'bctrl'.

'bctr' will be considered as jump instruction but jump__parse() won't
be able to find any target location and hence it will set target to
UINT64_MAX which transform 'bctr' to 'bctr UINT64_MAX'. This
looks misleading.

bctrl will be considered as call instruction but call_parse() won't
be able to find any target function and hence it won't show any
navigation arrow for this instruction. Which is same as filter it
beforehand.

> It doesn't look like we have the opcode handy here? Could we get it somehow?
> That would make this a *lot* more robust.

objdump prints machine code, but I don't know how difficult that would
be to parse to get opcode.

-Ravi

> cheers