[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wo0htqco.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 00:59:35 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@...iatek.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] timer: kasan: record timer stack
On Fri, Sep 25 2020 at 17:15, Walter Wu wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 10:55 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > We don't want to replace DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS with this patches, only
>> > hope to use low overhead(compare with DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS) to debug
>>
>> KASAN has lower overhead than DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS? Maybe in a different
>> universe.
>>
> I mean KASAN + our patch vs KASAN + DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS. The front one
> have the information to the original caller and help to debug. It is
> smaller overhead than the one behind.
For ONE specific problem related to timers and you have still not shown
a single useful debug output where this information helps to debug
anything.
> I agree your saying, so that I need to find out a use case to explain to
> you.
Indeed.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists