linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
>

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-04  8:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ 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 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] arm64: ftrace: adjust callsite addresses examined by " AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30 11:16   ` Will Deacon
2015-11-02 18:20     ` Steven Rostedt
2015-11-02 18:29       ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-02 18:41         ` Will Deacon
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 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] arm64: ftrace: fix a stack tracer's output under function graph tracer AKASHI Takahiro
2015-11-01  8:00   ` Jungseok Lee
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 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] arm64: insn: add instruction decoders for ldp/stp and add/sub AKASHI Takahiro
2015-10-30  5:25 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] arm64: ftrace: add arch-specific stack tracer AKASHI Takahiro
2015-11-01  8:30   ` Jungseok Lee
2015-11-04  8:01     ` AKASHI Takahiro [this message]
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).