From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <jon.medhurst@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Add unwinding annotations for 64bit division functions
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:57:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110922115713.GJ12025@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1316689606.2053.29.camel@linaro1>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:06:46PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 10:48 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > We could improve things a bit in the unwinder and assume
> > that if the fault address is the same as the .fnstart address, the
> > return value is always in LR and the SP not affected (that's unwinding
> > bytecode 0xb0). For a few instructions into the function prologue we
> > can't reliably get the unwinding information.
>
> That would help make it possible to unwind out of kprobes handlers to
> the probed function. The kprobes code itself would need work as well,
> and possibly the undef handler. Do we think it is worthwhile to do
> this?
Does kprobes need to trace beyond the probed function? If not, you get
the address of the probed function via pt_regs anyway, so no need for
unwinding beyond that.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-22 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-19 22:11 [PATCH] arm: Add unwinding annotations for 64bit division functions Laura Abbott
2011-09-19 23:22 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-09-20 1:55 ` Laura Abbott
2011-09-20 13:27 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-09-20 14:57 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-09-21 11:39 ` Dave Martin
2011-09-21 11:55 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-09-21 13:33 ` Dave Martin
2011-09-22 7:28 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2011-09-22 9:48 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-09-22 11:06 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2011-09-22 11:57 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2011-09-22 12:13 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2011-09-22 13:00 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-09-22 13:19 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
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=20110922115713.GJ12025@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dave.martin@linaro.org \
--cc=jon.medhurst@linaro.org \
--cc=lauraa@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
/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