[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811180922370.15003@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:23:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun
field
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Ok I will try with 50. If there are still a lot and often missing
> > traces with this depth, perhaps should we consider a hybrid solution
> > between ret stack and trampolines? We could use the normal ret stack
> > on struct info for most common cases and the trampoline when we are
> > exceeding the depth....
>
> dunno, trampolines make me feel uneasy.
>
> Could you set it to some really large value (200) and add a "max depth
> seen" variable perhaps, and see the maximum depth?
Don't run that on a box you care about ;-) But hopefully the stacks will
not collide. This should also depend on IRQSTACKS.
-- Steve
--
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