[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120710094845.GB14821@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:48:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com,
eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Fix USER/KERNEL tagging of samples
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 10:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > However, it is worth pointing out that sp/bp have exactly the same
> > segment base issue. So if you do stack tracing into user mode, you
> > should really do the same thing for those. And quite frankly, at that
> > point vm86 mode and the stack segment matters in other ways than just
> > the base pointer: a 16-bit stack segment acts fundamentally
> > differently from a 32-bit one. So at that point it may well make much
> > more sense to take the approach Ingo suggests, and simply not follow
> > stack frames at all.
>
> Right, so I amended the patch to ignore vm86 stacks and added
> {cs,ss}_base magic to ia32 stacks.
>
> Ingo, do you want me to do a version where I simply bail on
> everything if regs->{cs,ss} != {__USER_CS, __USER32_CS} ||
> regs->flags & VM ?
Only if it's really simple to do - out of morbid curiosity, to
compare the two diffstats and such.
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