[<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
 
