[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903270959520.1917@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:28:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GIT PULL] tracing/wakeup: move access to wakeup_cpu into
spinlock
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, looking back at the call stack:
> >
> > > > [<ffffffff806f8264>] schedule+0xd99/0x10f9
> > > > [<ffffffff806fb61b>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3c
> > > > [<ffffffff8027d2cb>] ? delayed_work_timer_fn+0x0/0x38
> > > > [<ffffffff8020d56d>] retint_careful+0x12/0x2e
> >
> > I wonder if we do not set up a stack frame properly. retint_careful is
> > called by assembly. I'll have a look at that
>
>
> Aah, indeed.
> May be should probe_kernel_address before saving
> the addresses.
>
Looking at the retint_careful, I'm 90% sure that is the bug.
Unfortunately, the CALLER_ADDR2 is a built in gcc function.
Looks like only the wakeup latency tracer calls it, perhaps we should
simply pass 0 instead?
-- 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