From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: function_graph: dump real return addr in call trace
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:51:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151015125133.GA29301@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6277407.jveniKQDxt@wuerfel>
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:46:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 October 2015 20:12:35 Li Bin wrote:
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > +static void print_ftrace_graph_addr(unsigned long addr,
> > + struct task_struct *tsk,
> > + unsigned long sp, int *graph)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long ret_addr;
> > + int index = tsk->curr_ret_stack;
> > +
> > + if (addr != ((unsigned long)return_to_handler - 4))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (!tsk->ret_stack || index < *graph)
> >
>
> I think it would be nicer to remove the #ifdef and write this as
>
> static void print_ftrace_graph_addr(unsigned long addr,
> struct task_struct *tsk,
> unsigned long sp, int *graph)
> {
> unsigned long ret_addr;
> int index = tsk->curr_ret_stack;
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER))
> return;
>
> if (addr != ((unsigned long)return_to_handler - 4))
> return;
Is this the same old problem caused by e306dfd06fcb ("ARM64: unwind: Fix
PC calculation")? I've said previously that I'm happy to revert that if
we're the only architecture with this behaviour, but Akashi resisted
because there are other issues with ftrace that he was hoping to address
and they would resolve this too.
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Li Bin <huawei.libin@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
zhouchengming1@huawei.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com,
dingtianhong@huawei.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
guohanjun@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: function_graph: dump real return addr in call trace
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:51:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151015125133.GA29301@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6277407.jveniKQDxt@wuerfel>
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:46:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 October 2015 20:12:35 Li Bin wrote:
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> > +static void print_ftrace_graph_addr(unsigned long addr,
> > + struct task_struct *tsk,
> > + unsigned long sp, int *graph)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long ret_addr;
> > + int index = tsk->curr_ret_stack;
> > +
> > + if (addr != ((unsigned long)return_to_handler - 4))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (!tsk->ret_stack || index < *graph)
> >
>
> I think it would be nicer to remove the #ifdef and write this as
>
> static void print_ftrace_graph_addr(unsigned long addr,
> struct task_struct *tsk,
> unsigned long sp, int *graph)
> {
> unsigned long ret_addr;
> int index = tsk->curr_ret_stack;
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER))
> return;
>
> if (addr != ((unsigned long)return_to_handler - 4))
> return;
Is this the same old problem caused by e306dfd06fcb ("ARM64: unwind: Fix
PC calculation")? I've said previously that I'm happy to revert that if
we're the only architecture with this behaviour, but Akashi resisted
because there are other issues with ftrace that he was hoping to address
and they would resolve this too.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-15 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-15 12:12 [PATCH] arm64: ftrace: function_graph: dump real return addr in call trace Li Bin
2015-10-15 12:12 ` Li Bin
2015-10-15 12:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-15 12:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-15 12:51 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-10-15 12:51 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-15 14:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-10-15 14:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-10-20 15:32 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-20 15:32 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-10-22 0:55 ` libin
2015-10-22 0:55 ` libin
2015-10-22 1:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-10-22 1:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-10-28 15:21 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-28 15:21 ` Will Deacon
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=20151015125133.GA29301@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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: link
Be 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.