[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9307b13e-e87e-1bc1-9e75-b4155d4157ca@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 18:26:24 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Holger Hoffst??tte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Pin task-stack in __get_wchan()
On 11/19/21 6:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 06:02:50PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>> This implementation is very similar to stack_trace_save_tsk(), maybe we
>> can just move stack_trace_save_tsk() out of CONFIG_STACKTRACE and reuse
>> it.
>
> No, we want to move away from the stack_trace_*() API because it has
> very unclear semantics and various arch implementations differ in
> details.
>
> There's a patch that untangles arch_stack_walk*() from CONFIG_STACKTRACE
> and we can eventually use that.
>
Got it.
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists