Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1258248 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-28 16:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-10-29 06:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
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.
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-10-28 16:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> - 2015-10-29 06:30 +0100
| From | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 16:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer |
| Message-ID | <qoAPM-4nj-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:01:37PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64. > The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more > issues[2]. > (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.) > > I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except > for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about > introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking > through from an interrupt stack to a process stack. > (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.) > > Basically, > patch1 corresponds to the original issue. > patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer. > patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer). > patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function). > patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences > between x86 and arm64). > > Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are > acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default > stack tracer. Given the comments and kbuild robot build errors, do you plan to post a new version of this series? 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]
| From | AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 06:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qoNWG-4sh-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1258248 |
On 10/29/2015 12:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:01:37PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64.
>> The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more
>> issues[2].
>> (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.)
>>
>> I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except
>> for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about
>> introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking
>> through from an interrupt stack to a process stack.
>> (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.)
>>
>> Basically,
>> patch1 corresponds to the original issue.
>> patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer.
>> patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer).
>> patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function).
>> patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences
>> between x86 and arm64).
>>
>> Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are
>> acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default
>> stack tracer.
>
> Given the comments and kbuild robot build errors, do you plan to post a
> new version of this series?
Yes, I do.
Do you have any comments that I should address before submitting a new version?
Apart from build errors, I admit that I should drop patch #4 ("arm64: ftrace:
allow for tracing leaf functions") just because I was somewhat confused.
I confirmed that "-pg" option actually disables omit-leaf-stack-frame.
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] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web