Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace() | From | Jungseok Lee <> | Date | Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:34:21 +0900 |
| |
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; 'Size' field is inaccurate. >> <reported size> = <its own dynamic local variables> >> + <child's local variables> >> and >> <real size> = <reported size> + <its local variables> >> - <child's local variables> >> where "dynamic" means, for example, a variable allocated like the below: >> int foo(int num) { >> int array[num]; >> ... >> } >> (See more details in my ascii art.) >> >> Such usage is seldom seen in the kernel, and <reported size> is >> likely equal to <child's local variables>. In other words, we will >> see one-line *displacement* in most cases. > > Well, I have a quick fix now, but it looks ugly.
AFAIU, stack_max_size would be more accurate if a separate stack is introduced for interrupt context. However, it might be unnecessary at this point due to complexity.
> In addition, I found another issue; With function_graph tracer, > the output is like: > # cat /sys/kernel/tracing/stack_trace > Depth Size Location (78 entries) > ----- ---- -------- > 0) 6184 32 update_min_vruntime+0x14/0x74 > 1) 6152 48 update_curr+0x6c/0x150 > 2) 6104 128 enqueue_task_fair+0x2f4/0xb9c > 3) 5976 48 enqueue_task+0x48/0x90 > ... > 18) 5160 112 hrtimer_interrupt+0xa0/0x214 > 19) 5048 32 arch_timer_handler_phys+0x38/0x48 > 20) 5016 0 ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30 > 21) 5016 64 ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30 > 22) 4952 32 ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30 > 23) 4920 64 ftrace_graph_caller+0x2c/0x30 > ... > > Since, with function_graph tracer, we modify LR register in a stack frame > when we enter into a function, we have to manage such special cases > in save_stack_trace() or check_stack() as x86 does in > print_ftrace_graph_addr().
I should have run it with function_graph. The issue is reproduced easily on my environment. I don't see other issues yet when enabling other tracers.
Best Regards Jungseok Lee
| |