[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <483D76AF.8000402@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:13:51 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Did you happen to get a patch together that reduces the stack usage of
> dump_stack?
Nope... but Andi Kleen sent a patch to put the warning on the irq stack
rather than the main process stack, so it avoids the original problem
with DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW at least.
> Also, what did you use to print your (above) indented callchain stack
> usage of dump_stack?
That was just hand-edited... :)
> I'd like to be able to audit the worst case stack usage of _all_ call
> chains that originate from a given thread. This would effectively be
> like DEBUG_STACK_USAGE except with finer grained (per call-chain)
> statistics. One crude way of doing this is to dump_stack() whenever a
> task's call-chain is the new "winner" as the biggest stack hog.
When will you test for the new winner?
> To do this safely it would seem to me that a leaner dump_stack() is needed...
It depends, I guess; if you have 8k stacks it'd probably fit ok in
almost all cases, I think.
> Lastly, would it be reasonable to utilize systemtap to implement what
> I described above? I'm actually looking to debug 4KSTACKS as
> unobtrusively as possible so as to not alter the underlying kernel (in
> this case it happens to be a RHEL5 kernel but this could apply to any
> kernel).
I don't actually know if systemtap can do what you want (not saying it
can't; just saying I don't know...)
-Eric
--
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