[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160318002815.GB4287@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:28:15 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] nmi_backtrace: add more trigger_*_cpu_backtrace()
methods
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:11:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 03:55:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The RCU stall-warn stack traces can be ugly, agreed.
>
> Ugly isn't the problem, completely random bollocks that puts you on the
> wrong path was more the problem.
>
> It uses a stack pointer saved at some random time in the past to start
> unwinding an active stack from. Completely and utter misery.
Yep, its accuracy does depend on what is going on, which was also my
experience with the NMI-based approach's reliablity.
Perhaps a boot-time parameter enabling the sysadm to pick the desired
flavor of poison?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists