[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609301344231.3952@g5.osdl.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
cc: Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
nagar@...son.ibm.com, Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: BUG-lockdep and freeze (was: Arrr! Linux 2.6.18)
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> We didn't so far find any bug in the unwinder code itself (ok if you don't
> count the performance issue Ingo found) just lots in the annotations and one
> bug in the dwarf2 standard.
I don't think it matters if it's a bug in the unwinding code or in the
data generated for it. It's still a bug in the unwinder.
Those bugs have been compiler bugs, manual annotation bugs, and it
doesn't _matter_ what kind of bugs. The end result is the same: the
unwinder is buggy.
> If you kick the people who add more than three levels of callback
> to core driver code to get their acts together too that's fine
> to me. Unfortunately I don't think that's realistic. So we clearly
> need better unwinding.
I dispute the "clearly". We didn't have _that_ many problems with just
manually filtering out obvious left-overs from some previous callchain.
I mean, really: Andi, point me to anything that was a real problem when we
had no unwinder at all?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists