On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 12:42 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> > > >>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> > >>> the others and just have 4 of them (DB0, DB1, DB2, and DB3. After
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> >>> the others and just have 4 of them (DB0, DB1, DB2, and DB3. After all,
> >>> overflowing from one debug stack into a
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:08:28AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:51:49AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > With the above "(stk
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:08:28AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:51:49AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > With the above "(stk <= begin || stk >= end)" check, removing the loop
> > > > becomes not a
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:51:49AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > With the above "(stk <= begin || stk >= end)" check, removing the loop
> > > becomes not all that important since exception stack dumps are quite
> > > rare and n
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:43:29AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > static bool in_exception_stack(unsigned long *stack, struct stack_info
> > *info)
> > {
> > - unsigned long estacks, begin, end, stk = (unsigned long)stack;
>
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:1
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >>> +/*
> > >>> + *
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 02/04/2019 17.48, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Array of exception stack page descriptors. If the stack is larger than
>
On 02/04/2019 17.48, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +/*
>>> + * Array of exception stack page descriptors. If the stack is larger than
>>> + * PAGE_SIZE, all pages covering a particular stack
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Array of exception stack page descriptors. If the stack i
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +/*
>>> + * Array of exception stack page descriptors. If the stack is larger than
>>> + * PAGE_SIZE, all pages covering
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:51:49AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > With the above "(stk <= begin || stk >= end)" check, removing the loop
> > > becomes not all that important since exception stack dumps are quite
> > > rare and n
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > With the above "(stk <= begin || stk >= end)" check, removing the loop
> > becomes not all that important since exception stack dumps are quite
> > rare and not performance sensitive. With all the macros this code
> > becomes a l
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Array of exception stack page descriptors. If the stack is larger than
> > + * PAGE_SIZE, all pages covering a particular stack will have the same
> > + * info.
> > + */
> >
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:19:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The current implementation of in_exception_stack() iterates over the
> exception stacks array. Most of the time this is an useless exercise, but
> even for the actual use cases (perf and ftrace) it takes at least 2
> iterations to g
The current implementation of in_exception_stack() iterates over the
exception stacks array. Most of the time this is an useless exercise, but
even for the actual use cases (perf and ftrace) it takes at least 2
iterations to get to the NMI stack.
As the exception stacks and the guard pages are pag
18 matches
Mail list logo
