[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110107165843.GA7376@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:58:43 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Soeren Sandmann Pedersen <sandmann@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt_regs on irq entry
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:13:58PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 07.01.11 at 17:05, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Once I'll have perf callchain based on CFI ready, we'll perhaps find some
> > > issues
> > > there. Although I guess there are already tools that can make use of that.
> >
> > Is this to read that you're planning to do a re-spin of the CFI
> > unwinding code (which I'm not allowed to submit another time,
> > but which we've been using for years in SuSE distros) then?
>
> An in-kernel CFI unwinder?
>
> No the intended CFI unwinding that I'm working on for perf is made
> on post-processing, on top of partial stack and regs snapshots.
>
> The true unwinding is computed in userspace.
I think that design will be fundamentally more robust and more flexible than an
in-kernel unwinder.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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