Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1205282 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC v2 1/4] ftrace: allow arch-specific check_stack()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC v2 1/4] ftrace: allow arch-specific check_stack() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-08-11 19:10 +0200
    Re: [RFC v2 1/4] ftrace: allow arch-specific check_stack() AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> - 2015-08-17 08:10 +0200
      Re: [RFC v2 1/4] ftrace: allow arch-specific check_stack() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-08-18 10:30 +0200

#1205282 — Re: [RFC v2 1/4] ftrace: allow arch-specific check_stack()

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:44:06AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> A stack frame pointer may be used in a different way depending on
> cpu architecture. Thus it is not always appropriate to slurp the stack
> contents, as currently done in check_stack(), in order to calcurate
> a stack index (height) at a given function call. At least not on arm64.
> 
> This patch extract potentially arch-specific code from check_stack()
> and puts it into a new arch_check_stack(), which is declared as weak.
> So we will be able to add arch-specific and most efficient way of
> stack traversing Later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>

If arm64 is the only architecture behaving differently, then I'm happy
to reconsider the fix to unwind_frame that we merged in e306dfd06fcb
("ARM64: unwind: Fix PC calculation"). I'd have thought any architecture
with a branch-and-link instruction would potentially have the same issue,
so we could just be fixing things in the wrong place if ftrace works
everywhere else.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1208381

Will,

On 08/12/2015 02:03 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:44:06AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> A stack frame pointer may be used in a different way depending on
>> cpu architecture. Thus it is not always appropriate to slurp the stack
>> contents, as currently done in check_stack(), in order to calcurate
>> a stack index (height) at a given function call. At least not on arm64.
>>
>> This patch extract potentially arch-specific code from check_stack()
>> and puts it into a new arch_check_stack(), which is declared as weak.
>> So we will be able to add arch-specific and most efficient way of
>> stack traversing Later.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
>
> If arm64 is the only architecture behaving differently, then I'm happy
> to reconsider the fix to unwind_frame that we merged in e306dfd06fcb
> ("ARM64: unwind: Fix PC calculation"). I'd have thought any architecture
> with a branch-and-link instruction would potentially have the same issue,
> so we could just be fixing things in the wrong place if ftrace works
> everywhere else.

I'm not the right person to answer for other architectures (and ftrace
behavior on them.) The only thing I know is that current ftrace stack tracer
works correctly only if the addresses stored and found on stack match to
the ones returned by save_stack_trace().

Anyway, the fix above is not the only reason that I want to introduce arch-specific
arch_check_stack(). Other issues to fix include
   - combined case of stack tracer and function graph tracer (common across arch's)
   - exception entries (as I'm trying to address in RFC 4/4)
   - in-accurate stack size (for each function, my current fix is not perfect though.)

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> Will
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1209117

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 07:07:00AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 02:03 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:44:06AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> A stack frame pointer may be used in a different way depending on
> >> cpu architecture. Thus it is not always appropriate to slurp the stack
> >> contents, as currently done in check_stack(), in order to calcurate
> >> a stack index (height) at a given function call. At least not on arm64.
> >>
> >> This patch extract potentially arch-specific code from check_stack()
> >> and puts it into a new arch_check_stack(), which is declared as weak.
> >> So we will be able to add arch-specific and most efficient way of
> >> stack traversing Later.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
> >
> > If arm64 is the only architecture behaving differently, then I'm happy
> > to reconsider the fix to unwind_frame that we merged in e306dfd06fcb
> > ("ARM64: unwind: Fix PC calculation"). I'd have thought any architecture
> > with a branch-and-link instruction would potentially have the same issue,
> > so we could just be fixing things in the wrong place if ftrace works
> > everywhere else.
> 
> I'm not the right person to answer for other architectures (and ftrace
> behavior on them.) The only thing I know is that current ftrace stack tracer
> works correctly only if the addresses stored and found on stack match to
> the ones returned by save_stack_trace().
> 
> Anyway, the fix above is not the only reason that I want to introduce arch-specific
> arch_check_stack(). Other issues to fix include
>    - combined case of stack tracer and function graph tracer (common across arch's)
>    - exception entries (as I'm trying to address in RFC 4/4)
>    - in-accurate stack size (for each function, my current fix is not perfect though.)

Ok, if you have other reasons for the callback, then fine. I just didn't
want you to think that you had to work around e306dfd06fcb at all costs.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web