[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101107212412.GB11134@nowhere>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:24:14 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Søren Sandmann Pedersen <ssp@...hat.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86: Eliminate bp argument from the stack tracing
routines
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:14:33AM -0400, Søren Sandmann Pedersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a resurrection of an old patch that I sent about a year ago:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/22/192
>
> At the time, I thought the patch broke perf callchains on 64 bit, but
> it turns out that those are broken even without this patch.
>
> I don't know why that is, but I now think the patch is correct and to
> blame.
>
> (FWIW, this
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> index 461a85d..d977d26 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -1653,7 +1653,7 @@ static const struct stacktrace_ops backtrace_ops = {
> .warning_symbol = backtrace_warning_symbol,
> .stack = backtrace_stack,
> .address = backtrace_address,
> - .walk_stack = print_context_stack_bp,
> + .walk_stack = print_context_stack,
> };
>
> makes it produce correct kernel callchains. And yes, I did compile the
> kernel with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER).
What do you see is broken in 64 bits perf callchains? Can you please provide
me more details so that I can fix the issue?
Thanks.
--
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