On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > + if (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> > + while (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame,
> > sizeof(*frame))) {
>
> Why?
>
> Why not just make this something like the appended instead?
ok having poked at this a ton more (and thought about it during a bori^long
meeting),
your approach is really hard to make work nicely with things like irq stacks.
HOWEVER, we can do even better! (well in my tired opinion anyway)
What I like most so far is the following idea: We walk the stack using BOTH
methods,
and just mark the entries we find as either "reliable as per stack frames" or
as "unreliable".
This way we walk the entire stack, get all the data no matter how corrupt EBP
or the frames end up,
yet we do get an indication on which parts are probably noise for the case of a
reliable stack
frame setup.
I coded it, it's not all that bad, the output looks like:
Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24-rc7 #17
[<c0405d6c>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[<c04066d6>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[<c0406f47>] dump_stack+0x6a/0x70
[<e01f6028>] backtrace_test_timer+0x23/0x25 [backtracetest]
[<c0426f07>] run_timer_softirq+0x11b/0x17c
[<e01f6005>] .backtrace_test_timer+0x0/0x25 [backtracetest]
[<c043b2e0>] .trace_hardirqs_on+0x101/0x13b
[<e01f6005>] .backtrace_test_timer+0x0/0x25 [backtracetest]
[<c04243ac>] __do_softirq+0x42/0x94
[<c04070a0>] do_softirq+0x50/0xb6
[<c0453f3c>] .handle_edge_irq+0x0/0xfa
[<c04242a9>] irq_exit+0x37/0x67
[<c04071a0>] do_IRQ+0x9a/0xaf
[<c04057da>] common_interrupt+0x2e/0x34
[<c041007b>] .write_watchdog_counter32+0x5/0x48
[<c0523371>] .acpi_idle_enter_simple+0x167/0x1da
[<c05807fe>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x52/0x78
[<c04034f3>] cpu_idle+0x46/0x60
[<c05fbbd3>] rest_init+0x43/0x45
[<c070aa3d>] start_kernel+0x279/0x27f
[<c070a327>] .unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x1a4
=======================
where I used a "." to indicate potentially-unreliable (this I'm not very happy
with, but I can print anything I want on either side of the function; ideas
welcome).
The code is relatively simple as well, it looks more or less like this:
@@ -119,24 +119,31 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex
{
#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
struct stack_frame *frame = (struct stack_frame *)ebp;
+
+ /*
+ * if EBP is "deeper" into the stack than the actual stack pointer,
+ * we need to rewind the stack pointer a little to start at the
+ * first stack frame, but only if EBP is in this stack frame.
+ */
+ if (stack > (unsigned long *) ebp)
+ && valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame, sizeof(*frame)) {
+ stack = (unsigned long *) ebp;
+ }
+
+ while (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, stack, sizeof(*stack))) {
unsigned long addr;
+ addr = *stack;
+ if (__kernel_text_address(addr)) {
+ if ((unsigned long) stack == ebp + 4) {
+ /* we have a stack frame based hit */
+ ops->address(data, addr, 1);
+ frame = frame->next_frame;
+ ebp = (unsigned long) frame;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * it looks like a kernel function, but
+ * it doesn't match a stack frame,
+ * print it as unreliable
+ */
+ ops->address(data, addr, 0);
+ }
+ }
+ stack++;
}
I need to go clean up the patch and split it up into 2 pieces (one for the
capability to print unreliable trace entries, and the second the chunk above to
actually walk the stack). I'm also going to try to remove some of the casts
in the code.
What do you think of this approach instead of your proposal?
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
