Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 15 May 2009 00:05:55 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | [PATCH 1/4] x86/stacktrace: return 0 instead of -1 for stack ops |
| |
From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
If we return -1 in the ops->stack for the stacktrace saving, we end up breaking out of the loop if the stack we are tracing is in the exception stack. This causes traces like:
<idle>-0 [002] 34263.745825: raise_softirq_irqoff <-__blk_complete_request <idle>-0 [002] 34263.745826: <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0
By returning "0" instead, the irq stack is saved as well, and we see:
<idle>-0 [003] 883.280992: raise_softirq_irqoff <-__hrtimer_star t_range_ns <idle>-0 [003] 883.280992: <= hrtimer_start_range_ns <= tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick <= cpu_idle <= start_secondary <= <= 0 <= 0
[ Impact: record stacks from interrupts ]
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> --- arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c index f7bddc2..4aaf7e4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ save_stack_warning_symbol(void *data, char *msg, unsigned long symbol) static int save_stack_stack(void *data, char *name) { - return -1; + return 0; } static void save_stack_address(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable) -- 1.6.2.4 --
| |