[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20dda91c-46e4-466d-9ebb-7e12fc6f5d28@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 17:51:47 +0100
From: Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
"Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] unwind_user/fp: Use dummies instead of ifdef
On 11/25/2025 5:43 PM, Jens Remus wrote:
> This simplifies the code. unwind_user_next_fp() does not need to
> return -EINVAL if config option HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP is disabled, as
> unwind_user_start() will then not select this unwind method and
> unwind_user_next() will therefore not call it.
>
> Note that enabling the config option HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP without
> defining ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME, ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_ENTRY_FRAME, and
> unwind_user_at_function_start() will result in a compile error, which
> is helpful when implementing support for unwind user fp in an
> architecture.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>
> diff --git a/include/linux/unwind_user.h b/include/linux/unwind_user.h
> @@ -5,9 +5,17 @@
> #include <linux/unwind_user_types.h>
> #include <asm/unwind_user.h>
>
> -#ifndef ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME
> - #define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME
> -#endif
> +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP
> +
> +#define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME
> +#define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_ENTRY_FRAME
Will fix this as follows in the next version:
#define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME(ws)
#define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_ENTRY_FRAME(ws)
> +
> +static inline bool unwind_user_at_function_start(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
Would it be better to provide a generic dummy implementation (see below)
or should each arch implement that if it cannot tell whether the topmost
frame is at function start? If so, would it move from linux/unwind_user.h
to asm-generic/unwind_user.h? Either way it would need to be outside of
the !CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP guard.
#ifndef unwind_user_at_function_start
static inline bool unwind_user_at_function_start(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
return false;
}
#define unwind_user_at_function_start unwind_user_at_function_start
#endif
If doing so ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_ENTRY_FRAME should be handled similar, so
that archs do not need to provide their own dummy either:
#ifndef ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_ENTRY_FRAME
#define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_ENTRY_FRAME(ws)
#endif
In that case only ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME would remain guarded by
!CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP, so that compile would fail, if enabling
CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP without providing ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME:
#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP
#define ARCH_INIT_USER_FP_FRAME(ws)
#endif /* !CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP */
> +
> +#endif /* !CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP */
>
> int unwind_user(struct unwind_stacktrace *trace, unsigned int max_entries);
>
Thanks and regards,
Jens
--
Jens Remus
Linux on Z Development (D3303)
+49-7031-16-1128 Office
jremus@...ibm.com
IBM
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Wolfgang Wendt; Geschäftsführung: David Faller; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen; Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
IBM Data Privacy Statement: https://www.ibm.com/privacy/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists