[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250618113831.1e26bb8f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:38:31 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri
Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Thomas
Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Indu
Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>, "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>, Beau
Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>, Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 06/14] unwind_user/deferred: Add deferred unwinding
interface
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:37:06 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > What about two CPUs managing to request an unwind at exactly the same
> > time?
>
> It's mapped to a task. As long as each timestamp is unique for a task it
> should be fine. As the trace can record the current->pid along with the
> timestamp to map to the unique user space stack trace.
>
> As for resolution, as long as there can't be two system calls back to back
> within the same time stamp. Otherwise, yeah, we have an issue.
I'll add a comment that states this as a constraint.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists