On 08/04/2015 02:32 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 02:22:16 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
It would be better to add the snippet when a new version is ready.
That way might help to figure out easily why the macro is introduced and how
it can be used in architecture code.
OK,
On 08/04/2015 02:32 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 02:22:16 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to add the snippet when a new version is ready.
That way might help to figure out easily why the macro is introduced and how
it can be used in
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 02:22:16 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
> It would be better to add the snippet when a new version is ready.
> That way might help to figure out easily why the macro is introduced and how
> it can be used in architecture code.
OK, which ever.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from
On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:57 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:30:50 +0900
> Jungseok Lee wrote:
>
>
>> There are two issues in the current version.
>> 1) The change does not work correctly when function_graph feature is enabled.
>> 2) Akashi have raised an issue that size field of
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:30:50 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
> There are two issues in the current version.
> 1) The change does not work correctly when function_graph feature is enabled.
> 2) Akashi have raised an issue that size field of stack tracer is inaccurate.
>
> So, I think this patch set is
On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi guys,
Hi Will,
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:09:51 +0100
> Will Deacon wrote:
>
>
> > > The arm64 bits look fine to me:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Will Deacon
> >
> > What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we waiting for a
> > new
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:09:51 +0100
Will Deacon wrote:
> > The arm64 bits look fine to me:
> >
> > Acked-by: Will Deacon
>
> What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we waiting for a
> new version?
I went on vacation :-) I'm back and trying to catch up. I'll be
pulling in a
Hi guys,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the
On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi guys,
Hi Will,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hi guys,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:30:50 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two issues in the current version.
1) The change does not work correctly when function_graph feature is enabled.
2) Akashi have raised an issue that size field of stack tracer is inaccurate.
So, I think
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 02:22:16 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better to add the snippet when a new version is ready.
That way might help to figure out easily why the macro is introduced and how
it can be used in architecture code.
OK, which ever.
-- Steve
--
To
On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:57 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:30:50 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two issues in the current version.
1) The change does not work correctly when function_graph feature is enabled.
2) Akashi have raised an issue that
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:09:51 +0100
Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
The arm64 bits look fine to me:
Acked-by: Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com
What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we waiting for a
new version?
I went on vacation :-) I'm back and trying to
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:09:51 +0100
Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
The arm64 bits look fine to me:
Acked-by: Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com
What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we
On Jul 21, 2015, at 7:26 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 07/21/2015 08:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
>> commit log message[1/3] as is.
>> But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
>> in the
On 07/21/2015 08:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi
So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
commit log message[1/3] as is.
But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
in the cover letter; 'Size' field is inaccurate.
=
On 07/21/2015 08:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi
So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
commit log message[1/3] as is.
But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
in the cover letter; 'Size' field is inaccurate.
reported size = its own
On Jul 21, 2015, at 7:26 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/21/2015 08:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi
So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
commit log message[1/3] as is.
But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
in the cover letter;
Hi
So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
commit log message[1/3] as is.
But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
in the cover letter; 'Size' field is inaccurate.
=
+
and
= +
-
Hi all,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
> >> I can get an Acked-by from the arm64
Hi all,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
I can get an Acked-by from the arm64
Hi
So i don't have to repost my patch here. Please use the original
commit log message[1/3] as is.
But please keep in mind that there is still an issue that I mentioned
in the cover letter; 'Size' field is inaccurate.
reported size = its own dynamic local variables
+
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:34:21 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
>
> The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows.
> I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this
> format
> instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track down this thread.
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:28:13 +0900
>> Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have reviewed and tested the kernel including this patch and only [RFC
>>> 1/3].
>>
>> Thanks! Can you repost
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:28:13 +0900
> Jungseok Lee wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have reviewed and tested the kernel including this patch and only [RFC
>> 1/3].
>
> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
> I can get an
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:28:13 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
>
> I have reviewed and tested the kernel including this patch and only [RFC 1/3].
Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all the
changes in
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:04 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Jungseok,
>
> Thank you for your testing and reviews.
You're welcome.
> On 07/16/2015 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>
>> Hi, AKASHI
>>
>>> On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hi Steve,
> Here's my latest version of the patch. I also added a fix that made
> entries off from the real number of entries. That was to stop the loop
> on ULONG_MAX in stack_dump_trace[i], otherwise if for some reason
> nr_entries is one off
Here's my latest version of the patch. I also added a fix that made
entries off from the real number of entries. That was to stop the loop
on ULONG_MAX in stack_dump_trace[i], otherwise if for some reason
nr_entries is one off and points to ULONG_MAX, and there is a -1 in the
stack, the trace will
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:40:54 +0100
Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > @@ -354,7 +330,7 @@ static int t_show(struct seq_file *m, vo
> > seq_printf(m, "DepthSize Location"
> >"(%d entries)\n"
> >"-
Hi,
> @@ -354,7 +330,7 @@ static int t_show(struct seq_file *m, vo
> seq_printf(m, "DepthSize Location"
> "(%d entries)\n"
> "- \n",
> -
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:38:18AM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:08:03 +0900
> AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> > On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
> > >>
On Jul 17, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hi Steve,
Here's my latest version of the patch. I also added a fix that made
entries off from the real number of entries. That was to stop the loop
on ULONG_MAX in stack_dump_trace[i], otherwise if for some reason
nr_entries is one off and
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:04 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Jungseok,
Thank you for your testing and reviews.
You're welcome.
On 07/16/2015 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:28:13 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
I have reviewed and tested the kernel including this patch and only [RFC 1/3].
Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:40:54 +0100
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
@@ -354,7 +330,7 @@ static int t_show(struct seq_file *m, vo
seq_printf(m, DepthSize Location
(%d entries)\n
-
Hi,
@@ -354,7 +330,7 @@ static int t_show(struct seq_file *m, vo
seq_printf(m, DepthSize Location
(%d entries)\n
- \n,
-max_stack_trace.nr_entries - 1);
+
Here's my latest version of the patch. I also added a fix that made
entries off from the real number of entries. That was to stop the loop
on ULONG_MAX in stack_dump_trace[i], otherwise if for some reason
nr_entries is one off and points to ULONG_MAX, and there is a -1 in the
stack, the trace will
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:28:13 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
I have reviewed and tested the kernel including this patch and only [RFC
1/3].
Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
I
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:28:13 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
I have reviewed and tested the kernel including this patch and only [RFC
1/3].
Thanks! Can you repost
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:34:21 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows.
I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this
format
instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:38:18AM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:08:03 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:49:52 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > -
> > - if (using_ftrace_ops_list_func())
> > - max_stack_trace.skip = 4;
> > - else
> > - max_stack_trace.skip = 3;
> > + max_stack_trace.skip = 3;
>
> I don't think this last line is necessary because we
Steve,
On 07/17/2015 05:22 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Here's the patch I now have in my local repo, and plan on pushing to my
repo on korg.
-- Steve
From d21f02a45fa367beaf97b153aa29849c06ac5609 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:24:54 -0400
On 07/16/2015 11:34 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:28:34 +0100
Mark Rutland wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
index c5534fa..868d6f1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
@@
Jungseok,
Thank you for your testing and reviews.
On 07/16/2015 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Here's the patch I now have in my local repo, and plan on pushing to my
repo on korg.
-- Steve
>From d21f02a45fa367beaf97b153aa29849c06ac5609 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)"
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:24:54 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] tracing: Clean up stack tracing and fix
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:31:15 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > In case of the number of entries, the following diff might be needed
> > as I suggested in the previous reply. ;)
> >
> > 8<
> >
> > @@ -330,7 +333,7 @@ static int t_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >
On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:01:25 +0900
> Jungseok Lee wrote:
>
>> I've gathered stack tracer data with your update.
>>
>> 1) stack_trace
>>DepthSize Location(35 entries)
>>-
>> 0) 4424
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:01:25 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
> I've gathered stack tracer data with your update.
>
> 1) stack_trace
> DepthSize Location(35 entries)
> -
> 0) 4424 16 put_cpu_partial+0x28/0x1d0
> 1) 4408 80
On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hi, Steve
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:29:05 +0900
> Jungseok Lee wrote:
[ snip ]
>> The data looks odd in two points.
>> 1) the number of entry
>> There is a mismatch between start token and real data
>
> Yep, good catch. As soon as I read
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:28:34 +0100
Mark Rutland wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > index c5534fa..868d6f1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> >
> >
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:08:03AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
> >> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:29:05 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
> First of all, let's look at the following data.
>
> 1) stack_trace data
> DepthSize Location(55 entries)
> -
> 0) 4808 16 notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x94
> 1) 4792 64
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Hi, AKASHI
>
>> On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
> On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
>>> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>
>>>
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:29:05 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, let's look at the following data.
1) stack_trace data
DepthSize Location(55 entries)
-
0) 4808 16 notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x94
1)
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:08:03AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:28:34 +0100
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
index c5534fa..868d6f1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
On Jul 16, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hi, Steve
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:29:05 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
The data looks odd in two points.
1) the number of entry
There is a mismatch between start token and real data
Yep, good catch. As soon
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:01:25 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
I've gathered stack tracer data with your update.
1) stack_trace
DepthSize Location(35 entries)
-
0) 4424 16 put_cpu_partial+0x28/0x1d0
1)
On Jul 17, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:01:25 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
I've gathered stack tracer data with your update.
1) stack_trace
DepthSize Location(35 entries)
-
0)
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:31:15 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
In case of the number of entries, the following diff might be needed
as I suggested in the previous reply. ;)
8
@@ -330,7 +333,7 @@ static int t_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
Here's the patch I now have in my local repo, and plan on pushing to my
repo on korg.
-- Steve
From d21f02a45fa367beaf97b153aa29849c06ac5609 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) rost...@goodmis.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:24:54 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] tracing: Clean up stack
Jungseok,
Thank you for your testing and reviews.
On 07/16/2015 10:29 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:08 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
On 07/16/2015 11:34 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:28:34 +0100
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
index c5534fa..868d6f1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
+++
Steve,
On 07/17/2015 05:22 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Here's the patch I now have in my local repo, and plan on pushing to my
repo on korg.
-- Steve
From d21f02a45fa367beaf97b153aa29849c06ac5609 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) rost...@goodmis.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jul
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:49:52 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
-
- if (using_ftrace_ops_list_func())
- max_stack_trace.skip = 4;
- else
- max_stack_trace.skip = 3;
+ max_stack_trace.skip = 3;
I don't think this last line is necessary
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:08:03 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
> >> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
>
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
Does the following patch make sense for you?
Looks nice. The patch greatly
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
Does the following patch make sense for you?
Looks nice. The patch greatly simplifies changes on arm64 side.
- Takahiro AKASHI
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
Does the following patch make sense for you?
-- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
index 3f34496244e9..9384647d07c3 100644
---
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:41:34 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Thank you for the explanation. But what I don't really understand here
> is why we need to add the "current function" to the stack dump list
> returned by save_stack_trace():
>
> In check_stack(),
> >/*
> > * Add the
Steve,
On 07/15/2015 11:51 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:20:42 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/14/2015 10:31 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
Is the below example an unexpected result?
Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
Does the following patch make sense for you?
Looks nice. The
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:08:03 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
On 07/16/2015 09:27 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I'll take a look at it and
Steve,
On 07/15/2015 11:51 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:20:42 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
On 07/14/2015 10:31 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the below example an
On 07/16/2015 01:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
Does the following patch make sense for you?
Looks nice. The patch greatly simplifies changes on arm64 side.
-
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:55:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
I'll take a look at it and try to clean up the code.
Does the following patch make sense for you?
-- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c b/kernel/trace/trace_stack.c
index 3f34496244e9..9384647d07c3
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:41:34 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
Thank you for the explanation. But what I don't really understand here
is why we need to add the current function to the stack dump list
returned by save_stack_trace():
In check_stack(),
/*
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:20:42 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 10:31 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
> > Jungseok Lee wrote:
> >
> >> Is the below example an unexpected result?
> >> Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call and ftrace_ops_no_ops, respectively.
On 07/14/2015 10:31 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
Is the below example an unexpected result?
Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call and ftrace_ops_no_ops, respectively.
[snip]
Note, function tracing does not disable interrupts. This looks to be
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee wrote:
> Is the below example an unexpected result?
> Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call and ftrace_ops_no_ops, respectively.
>
> DepthSize Location(51 entries)
> -
> 0) 5352 96
On Jul 13, 2015, at 2:29 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
> Ftrace's stack tracer on arm64 returns wrong information about call stacks:
>
>DepthSize Location(50 entries)
>-
> 0) 5256 0 notifier_call_chain+0x30/0x94
> 1)
On Jul 13, 2015, at 2:29 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi, AKASHI
Ftrace's stack tracer on arm64 returns wrong information about call stacks:
DepthSize Location(50 entries)
-
0) 5256 0 notifier_call_chain+0x30/0x94
1) 5256
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the below example an unexpected result?
Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call and ftrace_ops_no_ops, respectively.
DepthSize Location(51 entries)
-
0) 5352
On 07/14/2015 10:31 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the below example an unexpected result?
Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call and ftrace_ops_no_ops, respectively.
[snip]
Note, function tracing does not disable
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:20:42 +0900
AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
On 07/14/2015 10:31 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:47:10 +0900
Jungseok Lee jungseokle...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the below example an unexpected result?
Entry 17 and 18 are ftrace_call
Ftrace's stack tracer on arm64 returns wrong information about call stacks:
DepthSize Location(50 entries)
-
0) 5256 0 notifier_call_chain+0x30/0x94
1) 5256 0 ftrace_call+0x0/0x4
2) 5256 0
Ftrace's stack tracer on arm64 returns wrong information about call stacks:
DepthSize Location(50 entries)
-
0) 5256 0 notifier_call_chain+0x30/0x94
1) 5256 0 ftrace_call+0x0/0x4
2) 5256 0
94 matches
Mail list logo
