From: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
To: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Cc: "Martin Liška" <mliska@suse.cz>, "Jan Hubicka" <hubicka@ucw.cz>,
"Nathan Sidwell" <nathan@acm.org>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
"Sergei Trofimovich" <siarheit@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcov: fix TOPN streaming from shared libraries
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:13:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200922001355.3e09fa4c@sf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.2009212018060.29869@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3255 bytes --]
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 20:38:07 +0300 (MSK)
Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> > On 9/6/20 1:24 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > > From: Sergei Trofimovich <siarheit@google.com>
> > >
> > > Before the change gcc did not stream correctly TOPN counters
> > > if counters belonged to a non-local shared object.
> > >
> > > As a result zero-section optimization generated TOPN sections
> > > in a form not recognizable by '__gcov_merge_topn'.
> > >
> > > The problem happens because in a case of multiple shared objects
> > > '__gcov_merge_topn' function is present in address space multiple
> > > times (once per each object).
> > >
> > > The fix is to never rely on function address and predicate on TOPN
> > > counter types.
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > Thank you for the analysis! I think it's the correct fix and it's probably
> > similar to what we used to see for indirect_call_tuple.
> >
> > @Alexander: Am I right?
>
> Yes, analysis presented by Sergei in Bugzilla looks correct. Pedantically I
> wouldn't say the indirect call issue was similar: it's a different gotcha
> arising from mixing static and dynamic linking. There we had some symbols
> preempted by the main executable (but not all symbols), here we have lack
> of preemption/unification as relevant libgcov symbol is hidden.
>
> I cannot judge if the fix is correct (don't know the code that well) but it
> looks reasonable. If you could come up with a clearer wording for the new
> comment it would be nice, I struggled to understand it.
Yeah, I agree the comment is very misleading. The code is already very clear
about special casing of TOPN counters. How about dropping the comment?
v2:
From 300585164f0a719a3a283c8da3a4061615f6da3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergei Trofimovich <siarheit@google.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:13:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] gcov: fix TOPN streaming from shared libraries
Before the change gcc did not stream correctly TOPN counters
if counters belonged to a non-local shared object.
As a result zero-section optimization generated TOPN sections
in a form not recognizable by '__gcov_merge_topn'.
The problem happens because in a case of multiple shared objects
'__gcov_merge_topn' function is present in address space multiple
times (once per each object).
The fix is to never rely on function address and predicate on TOPN
counter types.
libgcc/ChangeLog:
PR gcov-profile/96913
* libgcov-driver.c (write_one_data): Avoid function pointer
comparison in TOP streaming decision.
---
libgcc/libgcov-driver.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c b/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
index 58914268d4e..e53e4dc392a 100644
--- a/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
+++ b/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ write_one_data (const struct gcov_info *gi_ptr,
n_counts = ci_ptr->num;
- if (gi_ptr->merge[t_ix] == __gcov_merge_topn)
+ if (t_ix == GCOV_COUNTER_V_TOPN || t_ix == GCOV_COUNTER_V_INDIR)
write_top_counters (ci_ptr, t_ix, n_counts);
else
{
--
Sergei
[-- Attachment #2: v2-0001-gcov-fix-TOPN-streaming-from-shared-libraries.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1381 bytes --]
From 300585164f0a719a3a283c8da3a4061615f6da3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergei Trofimovich <siarheit@google.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:13:54 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] gcov: fix TOPN streaming from shared libraries
Before the change gcc did not stream correctly TOPN counters
if counters belonged to a non-local shared object.
As a result zero-section optimization generated TOPN sections
in a form not recognizable by '__gcov_merge_topn'.
The problem happens because in a case of multiple shared objects
'__gcov_merge_topn' function is present in address space multiple
times (once per each object).
The fix is to never rely on function address and predicate on TOPN
counter types.
libgcc/ChangeLog:
PR gcov-profile/96913
* libgcov-driver.c (write_one_data): Avoid function pointer
comparison in TOP streaming decision.
---
libgcc/libgcov-driver.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c b/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
index 58914268d4e..e53e4dc392a 100644
--- a/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
+++ b/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ write_one_data (const struct gcov_info *gi_ptr,
n_counts = ci_ptr->num;
- if (gi_ptr->merge[t_ix] == __gcov_merge_topn)
+ if (t_ix == GCOV_COUNTER_V_TOPN || t_ix == GCOV_COUNTER_V_INDIR)
write_top_counters (ci_ptr, t_ix, n_counts);
else
{
--
2.28.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-21 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-06 11:24 Sergei Trofimovich
2020-09-21 11:10 ` Martin Liška
2020-09-21 17:38 ` Alexander Monakov
2020-09-21 23:13 ` Sergei Trofimovich [this message]
2020-09-22 7:12 ` Martin Liška
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200922001355.3e09fa4c@sf \
--to=slyfox@gentoo.org \
--cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=mliska@suse.cz \
--cc=nathan@acm.org \
--cc=siarheit@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).