[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220301095354.0c2b7008@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:53:54 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking/mutex: Pass proper call-site ip
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 10:05:12 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:04:11PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > The __mutex_lock_slowpath() and friends are declared as noinline and
> > _RET_IP_ returns its caller as mutex_lock which is not meaningful.
> > Pass the ip from mutex_lock() to have actual caller info in the trace.
>
> Blergh, can't you do a very limited unwind when you do the tracing
> instead? 3 or 4 levels should be plenty fast and sufficient.
Is there a fast and sufficient way that works across architectures?
Could objtool help here?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists