[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <460007ED.5010805@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:12:29 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
ak@...e.de, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
jbeulich@...ell.com, jeremy@...p.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops
callsites to make them patchable
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I'm conflicted about the dwarf unwinder. I was off doing other things
> at the time so I missed the pain, but I do have a distinct recollection of
> the back traces on x86_64 being distinctly worse the on i386. Lately
> I haven't seen that so it may be I was misinterpreting what I was
> seeing, and the compiler optimizations were what gave me such weird
> back traces.
>
Well, if you compile x86_64 with frame pointers it helps a bit because
the compiler doesn't tail merge function calls. But the stack backtrace
ignores the frame pointers even if they're present, unlike i386 which
will use them.
-
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