From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753999Ab0JMPDA (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:03:00 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:57165 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751896Ab0JMPC7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:02:59 -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=mtPlgYSsZCm6R9TZSLSzqtjd7MeHc5y8rNdnB8oXz8ffLzQoQNRc3Wr03Cg0QUd+YX ct9G5mngbNSt8K1DDGYQ0JpHB2kxDdglwKiVH/oJL4CllyeT/eWuCfAvkhEDFhxg7gAW 5nUSfVDKKCIzO/aLzwpH+ULZQ5QCphN3UqoXg= Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:02:49 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Paul Mackerras , Stephane Eranian , Cyrill Gorcunov , Tom Zanussi , Masami Hiramatsu , Steven Rostedt , Robert Richter Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/9] perf: Don't record frame pointer based user stacktraces if we dump stack and regs Message-ID: <20101013150246.GF5335@nowhere> References: <1286946421-32202-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1286946421-32202-5-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1286954586.29097.60.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1286954586.29097.60.camel@twins> 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 Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:23:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 07:06 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > User and kernel stack might be selected for other uses than callchain > > in the future, this probably shouldn't mess with the regular callchain > > code. Instead we should probably have an exclude_callchain_user > > attribute, that could be also useful to filter out user callchains > > when people don't want them. > > Probably ;-) Will change that then :) Thanks.