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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> that reminds me: ti->ret_stack[] should be moved to task->ret_stack[]. 
> That way we decouple its size from any kernel stack size limits. 
> (thread-info resides at one end of the kernel stack, on x86)

Yeah, I recommended that to Frederic to save space. But that can be 
dangerous. Using task instead would be safer with the downside of making 
the task struct even bigger.

-- 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/