On Oct 20, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> Hi Catalin,
>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:38:16PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Oct 17, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
BTW, a static allocation (DEFINE_PER_CPU for the
On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:47 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Jungseok,
>
> On 10/15/2015 10:39 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:19 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> Jungseok,
>>
> 8<
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> index f93aae5..e1
On Oct 20, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Catalin,
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:38:16PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> BTW, a static allocation (DEFINE_PER_CPU for the whole irq stack) would
>>> save us from another stack address
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:38:16PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > BTW, a static allocation (DEFINE_PER_CPU for the whole irq stack) would
> > save us from another stack address reading on the IRQ entry path. I'm
> > not sure exactly where the 16
Jungseok,
On 10/15/2015 10:39 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:19 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Jungseok,
8<
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index f93aae5..e18be43 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@ -
On Oct 17, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Catalin,
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:01:20PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2015, at 12:59 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> My concern is there could be push-back from the maintainer of
>>> kernel/fork.c, saying "define CONFIG_ARCH_THREA
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:01:20PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2015, at 12:59 AM, James Morse wrote:
> > My concern is there could be push-back from the maintainer of
> > kernel/fork.c, saying "define CONFIG_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR if the
> > generic code isn't what you need", and pu
On Oct 16, 2015, at 1:01 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 15/10/15 15:24, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>> I think unwind_frame() needs to walk the irq stack too. [2] is an example
>>> of perf tracing back to userspace, (and there are patches on the list to
>>>
On Oct 16, 2015, at 12:59 AM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
> On 14/10/15 13:12, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:00 PM, James Morse wrote:
On 12/10/15 23:13, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse w
On 15/10/15 15:24, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> I think unwind_frame() needs to walk the irq stack too. [2] is an example
>> of perf tracing back to userspace, (and there are patches on the list to
>> do/fix this), so we need to walk back to the start of
On 14/10/15 13:12, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:00 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 12/10/15 23:13, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse wrote:
> Having two kmem_caches for 16K stacks on a 64K page sys
On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi James,
[ ... ]
> I think unwind_frame() needs to walk the irq stack too. [2] is an example
> of perf tracing back to userspace, (and there are patches on the list to
> do/fix this), so we need to walk back to the start of the first stack for
> t
On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:19 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Jungseok,
Hi Akashi,
> On 10/14/2015 09:55 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:13 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Jungseok,
>
Jungseok,
On 10/14/2015 09:55 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:13 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi Jungseok,
On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
Currently, a call trace drops a process s
On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:13 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>> Hi Jungseok,
>>>
>>> On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
stac
On Oct 14, 2015, at 4:13 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> Hi Jungseok,
>>
>> On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
>>> stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less us
On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:00 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> Hi Jungseok,
>
> Hi James,
>
>> On 12/10/15 23:13, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse wrote:
Having two kmem_caches for 16K stacks on a 64K page system may be
On 10/09/2015 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
Hi Jungseok,
On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less useful when
a system gets paniked in interrupt context.
panicked
T
On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:00 PM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Jungseok,
Hi James,
> On 12/10/15 23:13, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> Having two kmem_caches for 16K stacks on a 64K page system may be wasteful
>>> (especially for systems with few cpus)…
>>
>> Th
Hi Jungseok,
On 12/10/15 23:13, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> Having two kmem_caches for 16K stacks on a 64K page system may be wasteful
>> (especially for systems with few cpus)…
>
> This would be a single concern. To address this issue, I drop the 'sta
On Oct 13, 2015, at 1:34 AM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Jungseok,
Hi James,
> On 12/10/15 15:53, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>>> I think unwind_frame() needs to walk the irq stack too. [2] is an example
>>> of perf tracing back to userspace, (and there are
Hi Jungseok,
On 12/10/15 15:53, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> I think unwind_frame() needs to walk the irq stack too. [2] is an example
>> of perf tracing back to userspace, (and there are patches on the list to
>> do/fix this), so we need to walk back to
On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:24 PM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Jungseok,
Hi James,
> On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
>> stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less useful when
>> a system gets paniked in interru
Hi Jungseok,
On 07/10/15 16:28, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
> stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less useful when
> a system gets paniked in interrupt context.
panicked
> This patch addresses the issue with the f
Currently, a call trace drops a process stack walk when a separate IRQ
stack is used. It makes a call trace information much less useful when
a system gets paniked in interrupt context.
This patch addresses the issue with the following schemes:
- Store aborted stack frame data
- Decide whethe
25 matches
Mail list logo
