On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:07:38PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:17:07AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > stack_trace_save_tsk() *shouldn't* skip anything unless we've explicitly > > > > told it to via skipnr, because I'd expect that > > > > > > It's what most archs happen to do today and is what > > > stack_trace_save_tsk() as implemented using arch_stack_walk() does. > > > Which is I think the closest to canonical we have. > > Ah; and arch_stack_walk() itself shouldn't skip anything, which gives > the consistent low-level semantic I wanted. > > > It *is* confusing though. Even if 'nosched' may be the normally > > desired behavior, stack_trace_save_tsk() should probably be named > > stack_trace_save_tsk_nosched(). > > I agree that'd be less confusing! > > Josh, am I right in my understanding that the reliable stacktrace > functions *shouldn't* skip sched functions, or should those similarly > gain a _nosched suffix? Correct, the reliable variants need to see the entire call stack and therefore they shouldn't skip sched functions. -- Josh
