From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> To: l00383200 <liucheng32@huawei.com> Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stacktrace in ARM32 architecture has jumped the first 2 layers, which may ignore the display of save_stack_trace_tsk. Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:22:19 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190530162219.dtooagpeyczfaazb@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1559228799-84473-1-git-send-email-liucheng32@huawei.com> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:06:39PM +0800, l00383200 wrote: > Without optimization, both save_stack_trace_tsk and __save_stack_trace > will have stacktrace information in ARM32. > > In this situation, "data.skip += 2" operation will skip the first two layers, > which may make the stacktrace strange and different from other architectures. > > A simple example is as follows: > In ARM32 architecture: > [<ffffff80083cb3f8>] proc_pid_stack+0xac/0x12c > [<ffffff80083c7c70>] proc_single_show+0x5c/0xa8 > [<ffffff800838aca8>] seq_read+0x130/0x420 > [<ffffff8008365c54>] __vfs_read+0x60/0x11c > [<ffffff80083665dc>] vfs_read+0x8c/0x140 > [<ffffff800836717c>] SyS_read+0x6c/0xcc > [<ffffff8008202cb8>] __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x4 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > In some other architectures(ARM64): > [<ffffff8008209be0>] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0xf0 > [<ffffff80083cb3f8>] proc_pid_stack+0xac/0x12c > [<ffffff80083c7c70>] proc_single_show+0x5c/0xa8 > [<ffffff800838aca8>] seq_read+0x130/0x420 > [<ffffff8008365c54>] __vfs_read+0x60/0x11c > [<ffffff80083665dc>] vfs_read+0x8c/0x140 > [<ffffff800836717c>] SyS_read+0x6c/0xcc > [<ffffff8008202cb8>] __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x4 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > Therefore, we'd better just jump only one layer to ensure accuracy and consistency. Why do we want to log the function we called to save the stack trace _in_ the stack trace? What useful purpose does it serve? I've always taken the attitude that if we want a stack trace from a certain point in the function, then that's the point that the stack trace should start. It's entirely sensible. > > Signed-off-by: liucheng <liucheng32@huawei.com> > --- > arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > index 71778bb..bb3da38 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static noinline void __save_stack_trace(struct task_struct *tsk, > #endif > } else { > /* We don't want this function nor the caller */ > - data.skip += 2; > + data.skip += 1; > frame.fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(0); > frame.sp = current_stack_pointer; > frame.lr = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0); > -- > 1.8.5.6 > > -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> To: l00383200 <liucheng32@huawei.com> Cc: peterz@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stacktrace in ARM32 architecture has jumped the first 2 layers, which may ignore the display of save_stack_trace_tsk. Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:22:19 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190530162219.dtooagpeyczfaazb@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1559228799-84473-1-git-send-email-liucheng32@huawei.com> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:06:39PM +0800, l00383200 wrote: > Without optimization, both save_stack_trace_tsk and __save_stack_trace > will have stacktrace information in ARM32. > > In this situation, "data.skip += 2" operation will skip the first two layers, > which may make the stacktrace strange and different from other architectures. > > A simple example is as follows: > In ARM32 architecture: > [<ffffff80083cb3f8>] proc_pid_stack+0xac/0x12c > [<ffffff80083c7c70>] proc_single_show+0x5c/0xa8 > [<ffffff800838aca8>] seq_read+0x130/0x420 > [<ffffff8008365c54>] __vfs_read+0x60/0x11c > [<ffffff80083665dc>] vfs_read+0x8c/0x140 > [<ffffff800836717c>] SyS_read+0x6c/0xcc > [<ffffff8008202cb8>] __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x4 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > In some other architectures(ARM64): > [<ffffff8008209be0>] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0xf0 > [<ffffff80083cb3f8>] proc_pid_stack+0xac/0x12c > [<ffffff80083c7c70>] proc_single_show+0x5c/0xa8 > [<ffffff800838aca8>] seq_read+0x130/0x420 > [<ffffff8008365c54>] __vfs_read+0x60/0x11c > [<ffffff80083665dc>] vfs_read+0x8c/0x140 > [<ffffff800836717c>] SyS_read+0x6c/0xcc > [<ffffff8008202cb8>] __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x4 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > Therefore, we'd better just jump only one layer to ensure accuracy and consistency. Why do we want to log the function we called to save the stack trace _in_ the stack trace? What useful purpose does it serve? I've always taken the attitude that if we want a stack trace from a certain point in the function, then that's the point that the stack trace should start. It's entirely sensible. > > Signed-off-by: liucheng <liucheng32@huawei.com> > --- > arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > index 71778bb..bb3da38 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static noinline void __save_stack_trace(struct task_struct *tsk, > #endif > } else { > /* We don't want this function nor the caller */ > - data.skip += 2; > + data.skip += 1; > frame.fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(0); > frame.sp = current_stack_pointer; > frame.lr = (unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0); > -- > 1.8.5.6 > > -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-30 16:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-30 15:06 [PATCH] Stacktrace in ARM32 architecture has jumped the first 2 layers, which may ignore the display of save_stack_trace_tsk l00383200 2019-05-30 15:06 ` l00383200 2019-05-30 16:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin [this message] 2019-05-30 16:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin 2019-05-31 8:27 ` Peter Zijlstra 2019-05-31 8:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190530162219.dtooagpeyczfaazb@shell.armlinux.org.uk \ --to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=liucheng32@huawei.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.