[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020804291223x6e40509fk8461ed4d96d443b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:23:02 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [2/2] vmallocinfo: Add caller information
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> Well so we display out of whack backtraces? There are also issues on
> platforms that do not have a stack in the classic sense (rotating register
> file on IA64 and Sparc64 f.e.). Determining a backtrace can be very
> expensive.
I think that's the key question here whether we need to enable this on
production systems? If yes, why? If it's just a debugging aid, then I
see Ingo's point of save_stack_trace(); otherwise the low-overhead
__builtin_return_address() makes more sense.
And btw, why is this new file not in /sys/kernel....?
--
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