Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrunfield

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Ok I will try with 50. If there are still a lot and often missing 
> > traces with this depth, perhaps should we consider a hybrid solution 
> > between ret stack and trampolines? We could use the normal ret stack 
> > on struct info for most common cases and the trampoline when we are 
> > exceeding the depth....
> 
> dunno, trampolines make me feel uneasy.
> 
> Could you set it to some really large value (200) and add a "max depth 
> seen" variable perhaps, and see the maximum depth?

Don't run that on a box you care about ;-)  But hopefully the stacks will 
not collide. This should also depend on IRQSTACKS.

-- Steve

--
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/