On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:32:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:47AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > +typedef bool (*stack_trace_consume_fn)(void *cookie, unsigned long addr, > > > + bool reliable); > > > > > +void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie, > > > + struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs); > > > +int arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie, > > > + struct task_struct *task); > > > > This bugs me a little; ideally the _reliable() thing would not exists. > > > > Thomas said that the existing __save_stack_trace_reliable() is different > > enough for the unification to be non-trivial, but maybe Josh can help > > out? > > > > >From what I can see the biggest significant differences are: > > > > - it looks at the regs sets on the stack and for FP bails early > > - bails for khreads and idle (after it does all the hard work!?!) > > > > The first (FP checking for exceptions) should probably be reflected in > > consume_fn(.reliable) anyway -- although that would mean a lot of extra > > '?' entries where there are none today. > > > > And the second (KTHREAD/IDLE) is something that the generic code can > > easily do before calling into the arch unwinder. > > And looking at the powerpc version of it, that has even more interesting > extra checks in that function. Right, but not fundamentally different from determining @reliable I think. Anyway, it would be good if someone knowledgable could have a look at this. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
