On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 08:09:10AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > There are several different users of save_stack_trace() in the kernel,
> > > > we can't
> > > > be sure that all of them are interested in dropping those guesses.
> > > >
> > > > So I'd rather advocate in favour of a new sepe
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:14:22PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:22:46AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > > Also, could you please rename the _norm names to _fast or so, to
> > > > > signal that this
> > > > > is a faster but less reliable method to get a stack dum
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:44:04PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Nice improvement but how about doing that with the return value of
> stacktrace_ops::address() instead?
>
> print_context_stack_bp() uses that for example. This behaviour could
> be extended.
Yes. I will leave the change in pr
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:22:46AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > Also, could you please rename the _norm names to _fast or so, to signal
> > > > that this
> > > > is a faster but less reliable method to get a stack dump? Nobody knows
> > > > what
> > > > '_norm' means, but '_fast' is pre
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:29:29AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Byungchul Park wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byun
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > > I want to proceed saperately since it's somewhat indep
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:29:29AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Byungchul Park wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byun
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:29:29AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > > I want to proceed saperately since it's somewhat indep
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > > > I want to pro
so
> that the crossfeature can use this optimized save_stack_trace_norm()
> which makes crossrelease work smoothly.
>
> ->8-
> From 1ceb4cee520cfc562d5d63471f6db4e9a8d9ff42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:31:09 +0900
> Sub
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > > I want to proceed saperately since it's somewhat indep
so
> that the crossfeature can use this optimized save_stack_trace_norm()
> which makes crossrelease work smoothly.
>
> ->8-
> From 1ceb4cee520cfc562d5d63471f6db4e9a8d9ff42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:31:09 +0900
> Sub
* Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > I want to proceed saperately since it's somewhat independent from each
> > other. Frankly speaking, I want this patchset to be
Park
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:31:09 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
>
> Currently, x86 implementation of save_stack_trace() is walking all stack
> region word by word regardless of what the trace->max_entries is.
> However, it's unn
makes crossrelease work smoothly.
->8-
>From 1ceb4cee520cfc562d5d63471f6db4e9a8d9ff42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:31:09 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
Currently, x86 implementation of save_stack_trace() is
16 matches
Mail list logo