Re: Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

Hi Pavel, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:17:51PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2017-03-09 13:16:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > >> On Wed, Mar

Re: Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

Hi Pavel, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 02:17:51PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2017-03-09 13:16:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at

Re: Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

Hi Pavel, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2017-03-09 13:16:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> >> I hope you do use ccache or

Re: Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

Hi Pavel, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2017-03-09 13:16:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> >> I hope you do use ccache or distcc? >> > >> > I tried

Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

On Thu 2017-03-09 13:16:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > Well, I have fast

Compiling kernels faster (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

On Thu 2017-03-09 13:16:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu 2017-03-09 16:29:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu 2017-03-09 16:29:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:14:47AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:29:59 -0600 > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > [adding Steven Rostedt to CC as an FYI] > > > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:14:47AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:29:59 -0600 > Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > [adding Steven Rostedt to CC as an FYI] > > > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf

Re: Old compiler versions (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > (On thinkpad X220, compiling bzip2) You really shouldn't assume that the zlib build tracks the kernel build. At least at some point, a noticeable part of the build cost for the kernel was just parsing the fairly big source

Re: Old compiler versions (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > (On thinkpad X220, compiling bzip2) You really shouldn't assume that the zlib build tracks the kernel build. At least at some point, a noticeable part of the build cost for the kernel was just parsing the fairly big source code. We have

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger advantages than CPU upgrade... > But note that 3.2 compiles a

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:22:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger advantages than CPU upgrade... > But note that 3.2 compiles a

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:29:59 -0600 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > [adding Steven Rostedt to CC as an FYI] > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > -

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:29:59 -0600 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > [adding Steven Rostedt to CC as an FYI] > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi Pavel, On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile >> > stuff. Especially

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi Pavel, On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile >> > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > > gcc-3.2 would

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu 2017-03-09 10:38:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger

Old compiler versions (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

Hi! > > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug > > > where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call. This issue > > > should be mostly obsolete as most modern compilers now have -mfentry. > > > We could make it dependent on CC_USING_FENTRY. > > > >

Old compiler versions (was Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null))

Hi! > > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug > > > where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call. This issue > > > should be mostly obsolete as most modern compilers now have -mfentry. > > > We could make it dependent on CC_USING_FENTRY. > > > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi Pavel, On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger advantages than CPU upgrade... I hope you do use

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi Pavel, On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Well, I have fast CPUs, but most of the time they just compile > stuff. Especially bisect is compile-heavy. I suspect going back to > gcc-3.2 would bring me bigger advantages than CPU upgrade... I hope you do use ccache or distcc?

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug > > where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call. This issue > > should be mostly obsolete as most modern compilers now have -mfentry. > > We could make it dependent on CC_USING_FENTRY. > > Yeah. At some

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug > > where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call. This issue > > should be mostly obsolete as most modern compilers now have -mfentry. > > We could make it dependent on CC_USING_FENTRY. > > Yeah. At some

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

[adding Steven Rostedt to CC as an FYI] On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug > > where the stack gets aligned before

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

[adding Steven Rostedt to CC as an FYI] On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:25:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > - CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER sets it on x86-32 because of a gcc bug > > where the stack gets aligned before the mcount call.

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Yeah. At some point we might even upgrade the compiler requirements to > no longer accept the mcount model. > > I think the fentry

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Yeah. At some point we might even upgrade the compiler requirements to > no longer accept the mcount model. > > I think the fentry model is gcc-4.6.0 and up. Currently I guess we >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > It does seem to make it bigger. With Pavel's config on gcc 6, if I add > -maccumulate-outgoing-args: > > That's 3.8% more text on x86-32. That's even more than I expected. I would have expected the -mregparm=3 to

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > It does seem to make it bigger. With Pavel's config on gcc 6, if I add > -maccumulate-outgoing-args: > > That's 3.8% more text on x86-32. That's even more than I expected. I would have expected the -mregparm=3 to catch so much of our

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:40:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > Also, the gcc documentation says -maccumulate-outgoing-args is > > "generally beneficial for performance and size." > > Hmm. I wonder how true

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:40:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > Also, the gcc documentation says -maccumulate-outgoing-args is > > "generally beneficial for performance and size." > > Hmm. I wonder how true that is. I'm pretty sure

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled > on x86_32 just like we already do on x86_64. Ugh. I realize we have workarounds for bugs, but I think -maccumulate-outgoing-args is nasty. It

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled > on x86_32 just like we already do on x86_64. Ugh. I realize we have workarounds for bugs, but I think -maccumulate-outgoing-args is nasty. It just generates worse

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> >> So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled >> on x86_32 just like we already do on x86_64. > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> >> So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled >> on x86_32 just like we already do on x86_64. > > Ugh. I realize we have workarounds for bugs, but I

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Also, the gcc documentation says -maccumulate-outgoing-args is > "generally beneficial for performance and size." Hmm. I wonder how true that is. I'm pretty sure it generates bigger code, although it's probably less

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Also, the gcc documentation says -maccumulate-outgoing-args is > "generally beneficial for performance and size." Hmm. I wonder how true that is. I'm pretty sure it generates bigger code, although it's probably less noticeable in the

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:59:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> > >> So I'm thinking we should have

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:59:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> > >> So I'm thinking we should have -maccumulate-outgoing-args always enabled > >> on x86_32 just like we

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:38:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Sorry for the delay. This is on v4.11-rc1, but that should be similar. > > pavel@duo:~$ gcc --version > gcc (Debian 4.9.2-10) 4.9.2 > > And here's the disassemble: > > c402d200 : > c402d200: 57 push

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 05:38:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Sorry for the delay. This is on v4.11-rc1, but that should be similar. > > pavel@duo:~$ gcc --version > gcc (Debian 4.9.2-10) 4.9.2 > > And here's the disassemble: > > c402d200 : > c402d200: 57 push

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:28:55PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:59:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:28:55PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:59:44AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Josh Poimboeuf > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> So I'm thinking we

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu 2017-03-02 17:45:14, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:04:39PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack > > > > > > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu 2017-03-02 17:45:14, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:04:39PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack > > > > > > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:04:39PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack unwind > > > > > > led > > > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:04:39PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack unwind > > > > > > led > > > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack unwind led > > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c rather than the one at > > > > > 0xf50cdfa8 (which is where it should normally be). So

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:10:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack unwind led > > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c rather than the one at > > > > > 0xf50cdfa8 (which is where it should normally be). So

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack unwind led > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c rather than the one at > > > > 0xf50cdfa8 (which is where it should normally be). So the question is > > > > how startup_32_smp() got executed the second time,

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > > > Somehow, startup_32_smp() is on the stack twice. The stack unwind led > > > > to the startup_32_smp() frame at 0xf50cdf9c rather than the one at > > > > 0xf50cdfa8 (which is where it should normally be). So the question is > > > > how startup_32_smp() got executed the second time,

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:56:14PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary > > > > > > messages > > > > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:56:14PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary > > > > > > messages > > > > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > > > > > > > commit

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > > > > > > > commit

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > > > > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > > > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > > > > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > > > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf > > > > Date: Thu

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:05:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:05:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > > from kernel during boot: > > > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:51:11PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/22/17 08:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> > >> FWIW, it would be really darned nice to not have all those zeroes in a > >> 32-bit stack frame dump. > > > > Yeah, I'll fix that. > > > >> Is not a zero stack frame pointer value

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:51:11PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/22/17 08:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> > >> FWIW, it would be really darned nice to not have all those zeroes in a > >> 32-bit stack frame dump. > > > > Yeah, I'll fix that. > > > >> Is not a zero stack frame pointer value

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > from kernel during boot: > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf > > Date: Thu Oct 27

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

Hi! > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > > from kernel during boot: > > > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf > > Date: Thu Oct 27 08:10:58 2016 -0500 > > >

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On 02/22/17 08:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> >> FWIW, it would be really darned nice to not have all those zeroes in a >> 32-bit stack frame dump. > > Yeah, I'll fix that. > >> Is not a zero stack frame pointer value an end of stack token? > > There's no end of stack "token" per se, though any

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On 02/22/17 08:45, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> >> FWIW, it would be really darned nice to not have all those zeroes in a >> 32-bit stack frame dump. > > Yeah, I'll fix that. > >> Is not a zero stack frame pointer value an end of stack token? > > There's no end of stack "token" per se, though any

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:15:36PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/21/17 15:12, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> > >> commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > >> Author: Josh Poimboeuf > >> Date: Thu Oct 27 08:10:58 2016 -0500 > >> > >> x86/unwind: Ensure stack

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:15:36PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/21/17 15:12, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> > >> commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > >> Author: Josh Poimboeuf > >> Date: Thu Oct 27 08:10:58 2016 -0500 > >> > >> x86/unwind: Ensure stack grows down > >> > >>

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On 02/21/17 15:12, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> >> commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb >> Author: Josh Poimboeuf >> Date: Thu Oct 27 08:10:58 2016 -0500 >> >> x86/unwind: Ensure stack grows down >> >> Add a sanity check to ensure the stack only grows down,

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On 02/21/17 15:12, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> >> commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb >> Author: Josh Poimboeuf >> Date: Thu Oct 27 08:10:58 2016 -0500 >> >> x86/unwind: Ensure stack grows down >> >> Add a sanity check to ensure the stack only grows down, and print >> a >>

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:14:18PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > from kernel during boot: > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > Author: Josh

Re: v4.10: kernel stack frame pointer .. has bad value (null)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:14:18PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > Thinkpad X220, in 32 bit mode... and I'm getting rather scary messages > from kernel during boot: > > Git blame says that message comes from commit > > commit 24d86f59093b0bcb3756cdf47f2db10ff4e90dbb > Author: Josh