[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yjis6hJKUj/WrSwK@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:50:50 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, hjl.tools@...il.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:45:51PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:40:32 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > func_B:
> > call __fentry__ /* push func_B */
> > ...
> > call __fexit__ /* pop 1 + tails */
> > ret
> >
> > func_A:
> > call __fentry__ /* push func_A */
> > ...
> > call __ftail__ /* mark func_A tail */
> > jmp func_B
> >
> > func_C:
> > call __fentry__ /* push func_C */
> > call func_A;
> > ...
> > call __fexit__ /* pop 1 + tails */
> > ret;
>
> This also assumes that we need to trace everything that is marked. I
> mentioned in another email, what do we do if we only trace funcA?
Like I said later on; if we inhibit tail-calls to notrace, this goes
away.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists