[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080305153711.GC19300@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:37:11 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: profile_pc() bogus since <= 2.6.19 (x86 at least)?
* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> while the comment at the top of kernel/spinlock.c states so:
>
> * Note that some architectures have special knowledge about the
> * stack frames of these functions in their profile_pc. If you
> * change anything significant here that could change the stack
> * frame contact the architecture maintainers.
>
> the actual code doesn't seem to match this anymore. With all (and even
> before that, many) functions being written in C, there cannot be
> validly made assumptions about the stack frame layout. Indeed, if I
> check the disassembly framed by __lock_text_{start,end} on x86, there
> are a number of functions that push one or two registers (in
> lock_kernel() even stack variables are being allocated), which clearly
> breaks profile_pc()'s assumptions.
>
> Since it's been this way for so long, I wonder how frequently this
> code is actually being exercised...
yeah - i guess it's not really relevant anymore now that lockdep saves
full stack traces. I doubt anyone bothers to look at wchan anymore. We
might even remove all the __lock and __sched sections and annotations?
Ingo
--
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