From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933567AbbJHOpO (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:45:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f68.google.com ([209.85.220.68]:35020 "EHLO mail-pa0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933388AbbJHOpI convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:45:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Jungseok Lee In-Reply-To: <1444298504-10392-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 23:45:01 +0900 Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, olof@lixom.net, broonie@kernel.org, david.griego@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <36B8D79C-E3BD-4937-94D1-B9725CA4FD68@gmail.com> References: <1444298504-10392-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> To: AKASHI Takahiro X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:01 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: Hi Akashi, > This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64. > The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more > issues[2]. > (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.) > > I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except > for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about > introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking > through from an interrupt stack to a process stack. > (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.) > > Basically, > patch1 corresponds to the original issue. > patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer. > patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer). > patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function). > patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences > between x86 and arm64). > > Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are > acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default > stack tracer. > > I tested the code with v4.3-rc3 + Jungseok's patch v3[4]. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354126.html > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/355920.html > [3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/368003.html > [4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/371451.html The [4] is not a valid patch. I hope the test has been going with the following one. http://www.kernelhub.org/?msg=841034&p=2 I will leave comments after playing with this series on top of my IRQ stack tree. Best Regards Jungseok Lee From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jungseoklee85@gmail.com (Jungseok Lee) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 23:45:01 +0900 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer In-Reply-To: <1444298504-10392-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> References: <1444298504-10392-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> Message-ID: <36B8D79C-E3BD-4937-94D1-B9725CA4FD68@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:01 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: Hi Akashi, > This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64. > The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more > issues[2]. > (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.) > > I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except > for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about > introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking > through from an interrupt stack to a process stack. > (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.) > > Basically, > patch1 corresponds to the original issue. > patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer. > patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer). > patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function). > patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences > between x86 and arm64). > > Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are > acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default > stack tracer. > > I tested the code with v4.3-rc3 + Jungseok's patch v3[4]. > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/354126.html > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-July/355920.html > [3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/368003.html > [4] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-September/371451.html The [4] is not a valid patch. I hope the test has been going with the following one. http://www.kernelhub.org/?msg=841034&p=2 I will leave comments after playing with this series on top of my IRQ stack tree. Best Regards Jungseok Lee