From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Martin Hicks <mort@sgi.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, heukelum@mailshack.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: push old stack address on irqstack for unwinder
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:39:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090131003921.GA13709@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49839CC8.7060502@zytor.com>
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Martin Hicks wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> KDB was using this information. Could this be pushed towards 2.6.29
>>> please?
>>>
>>> This re-adds the old stack pointer to the top of the irqstack to help
>>> with unwinding. It was removed in commit
>>> d99015b1abbad743aa049b439c1e1dede6d0fa49
>>> as part of the save_args out-of-line work.
>>>
>>
>> This bothers me... why should we add even a single instruction to what
>> is arguably the single hottest path in the kernel to support an
>> out-of-tree debugger, especially if kgdb (which is in-tree) doesn't
>> need it?
>>
>> What does kgdb do differently (or is kgdb broken too)?
>>
>
> Thinking about it some more, I think this makes sense under
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
>
> ... since if we're not building with frame pointers, this is pretty
> pointless, and if we are, we're adding these all over the place anyway.
>
> Does this work for you? Let me know and I'll get it in if so.
Would be nice to have an #ifdef-less primitive for this - something like:
pushq_frame %rbp
and a matching:
popq_frame %rbp
for those cases that need it (this one doesnt as we dont pop out of the
stack).
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-31 0:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-30 16:50 [PATCH] x86: push old stack address on irqstack for unwinder Martin Hicks
2009-01-30 23:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-31 0:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-31 0:39 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-01-31 0:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-31 0:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-31 17:45 ` Martin Hicks
2009-02-03 5:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
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=20090131003921.GA13709@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mort@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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