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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > What would be needed is to make a per-arch stack call. Perhaps have 
> > a:
> > 
> >    arch_check_stack(&this_size, &max_stack_trace, &max_stack_size);
> > 
> > Where a weak function can be defined to return nothing. But the arch 
> > can check which stack the "this_size" variable is on and run the 
> > stack tracer against that stack.
> > 
> > Maybe we should have two stack traces, a stack_trace file and a 
> > stack_trace_irq ?
> > 
> > Because, some archs, like x86_64 have different size stacks. The 
> > thread stack is 8K where as the IRQ stack is 4K.  We may want to see 
> > which IRQ stack call is the worst, and not compare it to the thread 
> > stack call.
> 
> ... and on 64-bit x86 the IRQ stacks are 16K, and some of the IST 
> exception stacks have different sizes as well.

Heh, I expect that we will not support IRQ stacks until 2.6.30 or 31 :-/

-- 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/