[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080103181651.GC3627@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:16:51 -0800
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
"William L. Irwin" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] Add basic support for gcc profiler
instrumentation
* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> Hmm, I know paravirt-ops had an issue with mcount in the RT tree. I can't
> remember the exact issues, but it did have something to do with the way
> parameters were passed in.
>
> Chris, do you remember what the issues were?
Yes, paravirt ops have a well-specified calling convention (register
based). There was a cleanup that Andi did that caused the problem
because it removed all the "fastcall" annotations since -mregparm=3
is now always on for i386. Since MCOUNT disables REGPARM the calling
convention changes (caller pushes to stack, callee expects register)
chaos ensues. I sent a patch to fix that quite some months back, but
it went stale and I neglected to update it. Would you like me to dig
it up refresh and resend?
thanks,
-chris
--
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