From: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (AKASHI Takahiro)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 6/6] arm64: ftrace: add arch-specific stack tracer
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:01:58 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5639BB76.6060903@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9BDC406F-52E1-4F8C-8245-7B49EC4C861D@gmail.com>
Jungseok,
On 11/01/2015 05:30 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:25 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Hi Akashi,
>
>> Stack tracer on arm64, check_stack(), is uniqeue in the following
>> points:
>> * analyze a function prologue of a traced function to estimate a more
>> accurate stack pointer value, replacing naive '<child's fp> + 0x10.'
>> * use walk_stackframe(), instead of slurping stack contents as orignal
>> check_stack() does, to identify a stack frame and a stack index (height)
>> for every callsite.
>>
>> Regarding a function prologue analyzer, there is no guarantee that we can
>> handle all the possible patterns of function prologue as gcc does not use
>> any fixed templates to generate them. 'Instruction scheduling' is another
>> issue here.
>> Nevertheless, the current version will surely cover almost all the cases
>> in the kernel image and give us useful information on stack pointers.
>
> Can I get an idea on how to test the function prologue analyzer? It pretty
> tough to compare stack trace data with objdump one. Is there an easier way
> to observe this enhancement without objdump?
It is quite difficult to give an evidence of the correctness of my function
prologue analyzer. I only checked the outputs from stack tracer, one by one
(every function), by comparing it against its disassembled code.
Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI
> Best Regards
> Jungseok Lee
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
To: Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@gmail.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arm64: ftrace: add arch-specific stack tracer
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:01:58 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5639BB76.6060903@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9BDC406F-52E1-4F8C-8245-7B49EC4C861D@gmail.com>
Jungseok,
On 11/01/2015 05:30 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:25 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Hi Akashi,
>
>> Stack tracer on arm64, check_stack(), is uniqeue in the following
>> points:
>> * analyze a function prologue of a traced function to estimate a more
>> accurate stack pointer value, replacing naive '<child's fp> + 0x10.'
>> * use walk_stackframe(), instead of slurping stack contents as orignal
>> check_stack() does, to identify a stack frame and a stack index (height)
>> for every callsite.
>>
>> Regarding a function prologue analyzer, there is no guarantee that we can
>> handle all the possible patterns of function prologue as gcc does not use
>> any fixed templates to generate them. 'Instruction scheduling' is another
>> issue here.
>> Nevertheless, the current version will surely cover almost all the cases
>> in the kernel image and give us useful information on stack pointers.
>
> Can I get an idea on how to test the function prologue analyzer? It pretty
> tough to compare stack trace data with objdump one. Is there an easier way
> to observe this enhancement without objdump?
It is quite difficult to give an evidence of the correctness of my function
prologue analyzer. I only checked the outputs from stack tracer, one by one
(every function), by comparing it against its disassembled code.
Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI
> Best Regards
> Jungseok Lee
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-04 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-30 5:25 [PATCH v4 0/6] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] arm64: ftrace: adjust callsite addresses examined by " AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 11:16 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-30 11:16 ` Will Deacon
2015-11-02 18:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-11-02 18:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-11-02 18:29 ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-02 18:29 ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-02 18:41 ` Will Deacon
2015-11-02 18:41 ` Will Deacon
2015-11-02 18:43 ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-02 18:43 ` Mark Rutland
2015-10-30 5:25 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] arm64: ftrace: modify a stack frame in a safe way AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] arm64: ftrace: fix a stack tracer's output under function graph tracer AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-11-01 8:00 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-11-01 8:00 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-11-04 7:49 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-11-04 7:49 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] ftrace: allow arch-specific stack tracer AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] arm64: insn: add instruction decoders for ldp/stp and add/sub AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] arm64: ftrace: add arch-specific stack tracer AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 5:25 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-11-01 8:30 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-11-01 8:30 ` Jungseok Lee
2015-11-04 8:01 ` AKASHI Takahiro [this message]
2015-11-04 8:01 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2015-11-04 8:42 ` yalin wang
2015-11-04 8:42 ` yalin wang
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=5639BB76.6060903@linaro.org \
--to=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--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.