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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1258248 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer

Started byWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
First post2015-10-28 16:30 +0100
Last post2015-10-29 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.


Contents

  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

#1258248 — Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer

FromWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Date2015-10-28 16:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [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]


#1258576

FromAKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Date2015-10-29 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