* Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I could be missing something. I think either this patch is not need or you > > > need to teach the tool to ignore all JITed stuff. I don't think it's > > > practical to annotate everything. Different JITs do their own magic. s390 > > > JIT is even more fancy. > > > > Well, but the point of these patches isn't to make the tool happy. It's > > really to make sure that runtime stack traces can be made reliable. Maybe I'm > > missing something but I don't see why JIT code can't honor > > CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER just like any other code. > > It can if there is no performance cost added. I can speak for x64 JIT, but the > rest needs to be analyzed as well. My point was that may be it's easier to > ignore all JITed code and just say that such call stacks may be unreliable? > live-patching is not applicable to JITed code anyway or you want to livepatch > the callees of it? So the rule is that if frame pointers are enabled all kernel code should have correct stack frames - in case an IRQ (or NMI) hits it or it crashes. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
