linux-kernel - Re: Why kmem_cache_free occupy CPU for more than 10 seconds?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ac8af0be0704110310n1f237e2el6f34365c4aaa5969@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:10:33 +0800
From:	"Zhao Forrest" <forrest.zhao@...il.com>
To:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why kmem_cache_free occupy CPU for more than 10 seconds?

On 4/11/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 02:53 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > I'm confused - which end of ths stack is up?
> >
> > cpuset_exit doesn't call do_exit, rather it's the other
> > way around.  But put_files_struct doesn't call do_exit,
> > rather do_exit calls __exit_files calls put_files_struct.
>
> I'm guessing its x86_64 which generates crap traces.
>
Yes, it's x86_64. Is there a reliable way to generate stack traces under x86_64?
Can enabling "[ ] Compile the kernel with frame pointers" help?
-
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/