From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754150Ab0DAIGi (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:06:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:45590 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754129Ab0DAIGJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:06:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=MAbdZZuoJHk/ClwoWpVo0t2fazUYE3sPkS5O1qDfaKMLdFgb2lCpB0jsZDvEoBC+Sj iuFozrENiM2yOMB3OFPEC/tdyGKo1BMrCdL3Uy1TcQ34kUaBc4TK6Ifhqzeih9ABMvkl 2wjoFEmKqm9A5cerKNfqEqXrbpl6hqTDZfYKw= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:06:11 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: David Miller Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] fault while using perf callchains in sparc64 Message-ID: <20100401090608.GD5207@nowhere> References: <20100329212839.GA12254@nowhere> <20100329.150253.11262563.davem@davemloft.net> <20100329222132.GB12254@nowhere> <20100329.153208.190256896.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100329.153208.190256896.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 03:32:08PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Frederic Weisbecker > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:21:34 +0200 > > > $ ldd /usr/bin/as > > libopcodes-2.18.0.20080103.so => /usr/lib/libopcodes-2.18.0.20080103.so (0xf7ec4000) > > libbfd-2.18.0.20080103.so => /usr/lib/libbfd-2.18.0.20080103.so (0xf7e14000) > > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xf7ca0000) > > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xf7efc000) > > Ok, same here. > > > The last kernel I know that don't have such problems is 2.6.31-rc6 > > May be I should bisect? > > Hmmm, since you know a good and bad point, yes a bisect > might be the best way to proceed here. > > It might be quicker if you first test 2.6.32 and 2.6.33 > and then use the results of that to guide your bisect. > > Anyways, if you narrow it down to a commit I should be > able to fix this quickly. > > Thanks! I actually can't. It works well on a backup 2.6.31-rc6 kernel but when I build a new one of this same version, the problem happens again. And I don't have the config of the one that works (and no /proc/config.gz as well). So I suspect this is something that happens with some specific configs only. Anyway, once I get more clues about this, I'll tell you. Thanks.