Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer | From | Jungseok Lee <> | Date | Thu, 8 Oct 2015 23:45:01 +0900 |
| |
On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:01 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi Akashi,
> 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. > > I tested the code with v4.3-rc3 + Jungseok's patch v3[4]. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354126.html > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/355920.html > [3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/368003.html > [4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/371451.html
The [4] is not a valid patch. I hope the test has been going with the following one.
http://www.kernelhub.org/?msg=841034&p=2
I will leave comments after playing with this series on top of my IRQ stack tree.
Best Regards Jungseok Lee
| |