Re: [patch 7/7] stacktrace filtering for fault-injection capabilities

[Akinobu Mita]

2006/10/14, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx>:

> > > --- work-fault-inject.orig/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > +++ work-fault-inject/lib/Kconfig.debug
> > > @@ -472,6 +472,8 @@ config LKDTM
> > >
> > >  config FAULT_INJECTION
> > >     bool
> > > +   select STACKTRACE
> > > +   select FRAME_POINTER
> > >
> > >  config FAILSLAB
> > >     bool "fault-injection capabilitiy for kmalloc"
> > >
> >
> > Is the selection of FRAME_POINTER really needed?  The fancy new unwinder
> > is supposed to be able to handle frame-pointerless unwinding?
>
> As I wrote in another reply, There are two type of implementation of
> this stacktrace filter.
>
> - using STACKTRACE + FRAME_POINTER
> - using new unwinder (STACK_UNWIND)
>
> The stacktrace with using new unwinder without FRAME_POINTER is much
> slower than STACKTRACE + FRAME_POINTER.

Maybe I should drop new unwinder support for now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/