Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:02:49 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun field |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > > > I was just looking at the stack tracer, and it pretty much gives us > > > the answer ;-) I'm hitting on max traces around 55, but some of > > > those are asm calls. We could do 50 or 60? We probably want to make > > > sure that the two do not come close to hitting. That is, the bottom > > > of the stack to overwrite the saved return addresses. > > > > does the stack tracer properly nest across IRQ entry boundaries > > already on x86? We used to have problems in that area. > > Actually, because the stack tracer is in generic code, we punt on IRQ > stacks: > > /* we do not handle interrupt stacks yet */ > if (!object_is_on_stack(&this_size)) > return; > > I check if the local variable "this_size" is on the current->stack > and if it is not then this means that we are using some other stack, > and we do not record it. > > What would be needed is to make a per-arch stack call. Perhaps have > a: > > arch_check_stack(&this_size, &max_stack_trace, &max_stack_size); > > Where a weak function can be defined to return nothing. But the arch > can check which stack the "this_size" variable is on and run the > stack tracer against that stack. > > Maybe we should have two stack traces, a stack_trace file and a > stack_trace_irq ? > > Because, some archs, like x86_64 have different size stacks. The > thread stack is 8K where as the IRQ stack is 4K. We may want to see > which IRQ stack call is the worst, and not compare it to the thread > stack call.
... and on 64-bit x86 the IRQ stacks are 16K, and some of the IST exception stacks have different sizes as well.
Ingo
| |