Re: Wrong Perf Backtraces

Hi Milian,
Thanks for the detailed answer. Well, the bug you mentioned is bad news. 
Because I sample using uppp. Perhaps this leads to these weird traces. 
Is this a purely software bug?

On 2020-03-31 19:14, Milian Wolff wrote:

> On Dienstag, 31. März 2020 15:39:18 CEST ahmadkhorrami wrote:
> 
>> But the addresses do not match. Do you confirm this as a bug in
>> libdwarf,...?
>> 
>> So I will ignore addresses without a matching symbol. But they do not
>> seem reliable!
>> 
>> Could you tell me the name of the library that generates the raw
>> addresses, so that I can try to debug it?
> 
> This is a platform specific question. There are multiple ways to unwind 
> a
> stack. If you are on x86 then by default the .eh_frame section is 
> available
> which holds the information necessary for unwinding. It doesn't depend 
> on
> debug symbols, that's only used for symbolization and inline-frame 
> resolution
> as Jiri indicated.
> 
> That said, in the context of perf, there are multiple scenarios that 
> can lead
> to broken unwinding:
> 
> a) perf record --call-graph dwarf: unwinding can overflow the stack 
> copy
> associated with every sample, so the upper end of the stack will be 
> broken
> 
> b) perf record --call-graph $any: when you are sampling on a precise 
> event,
> such as cycles:P which is the default afaik, then on Intel with PEBS 
> e.g. the
> stack copy may be "wrong". See e.g. https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/257 
> and
> the overall thread. This is not solved yet afaik and after my initial 
> attempt
> at workarounding this issue I stopped looking into it and instead opted 
> for
> explicitly sampling on the non-precise events when I record call 
> graphs... You
> could try that too: do you see the issue when you run e.g.:
> 
> `perf record --call-graph dwarf -e cycles`
> 
> This should take the non-precise version for sampling but then at least 
> the
> call stacks are correct. I.e. you trade the accuracy of the instruction
> pointer to which a sample points with reduced call stack breakage.
> 
> c) bugs :)