From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752466AbYIEJkM (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2008 05:40:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751368AbYIEJkA (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2008 05:40:00 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:35904 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751075AbYIEJj7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:43:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Bernd Schubert Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbeulich@novell.com Subject: Re: frame unwinder patches Message-ID: <20080905094316.GS18288@one.firstfloor.org> References: <87tzcvvi4p.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <200809051124.17194.bs@q-leap.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809051124.17194.bs@q-leap.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 11:24:16AM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > On Thursday 04 September 2008 21:13:58 Andi Kleen wrote: > > Bernd Schubert writes: > > > Hello, > > > > > > up to 2.6.22 the -mm series had these nice frame unwinder patches, > > > which gave beautiful stack traces. Unfortunately these frame unwinder > > > patches seem to have been dropped :( > > > > > > Anyone still maintaining updated patches? > > > > The SUSE kernel rpm should have an uptodate set > > > > (ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/HEAD ) > > > > Thanks Andi, found it! If someone else needs it, the correct path is > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/HEAD. Thanks for the correction. > > I agree that they were much better than the current unwinder, > > also they didn't require slowing down the kernel with > > frame pointers. > > What it the reason this patch isn't mainline? It provides better traces, > doesn't slow down the kernel (which is important in our HPC envirement), so > what is the disadvantage? The initial version that was merged had a few teething problems because it ran into tool chain bugs (which were quickly resolved). Unfortunately it lead to a few people developing irrational fears of dwarf2 in the process and it was reverted, annoying the original contributor. Right now someone would just need to retry the submission I guess. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com