On Sep 8, 2015, at 10:45 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Jungseok, Hi Akashi,
> On 09/08/2015 01:34 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote: >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:06 AM, James Morse wrote: >>> On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote: >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>>> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the >>>>> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel >>>>> usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack >>>>> when processing irqs allows us to make the stack size smaller. >>>>> >>>>> Maximum kernel stack usage (running ltp and generating usb+ethernet >>>>> interrupts) was 7256 bytes. With this patch, the same workload gives >>>>> a maximum stack usage of 5816 bytes. >>>> >>>> I'd like to know how to measure the max stack depth. >>>> AFAIK, a stack tracer on ftrace does not work well. Did you dump a stack >>>> region and find or track down an untouched region? >>> >>> I enabled the 'Trace max stack' option under menuconfig 'Kernel Hacking' -> >>> 'Tracers', then looked in debugfs:/tracing/stack_max_size. >>> >>> What problems did you encounter? >>> (I may be missing something…) >> >> When I enabled the feature, all entries had *0* size except the last entry. >> It can be reproduced easily as looking in debugs:/tracing/stack_trace. > > I'm afraid that you have not applied one of patches in my RFC: > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/355919.html My description is not clear. Whenever I use a stack tracer, I always put your RFC and Steve's stack tracer fix on top of my tree. Best Regards Jungseok Lee-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/