From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752694AbcF3XHx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:07:53 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:60961 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752043AbcF3XHv (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:07:51 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 08:06:08 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        npiggin@suse.de, walken@google.com, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: [RFC 12/12] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
Message-ID: <20160630230608.GS2279@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1466398527-1122-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1466398527-1122-13-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <57679B57.40905@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <000101d1cac8$6f321c40$4d9654c0$@lge.com>
 <20160629124343.GQ2279@X58A-UD3R>
 <5774F6B7.5050200@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5774F6B7.5050200@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:38:47PM +0800, xinhui wrote:
> >>>>+static int save_stack_end(void *data)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+	struct stack_trace *trace = data;
> >>>>+	return trace->nr_entries >= trace->max_entries;
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>   static const struct stacktrace_ops save_stack_ops = {
> >>>>   	.stack		= save_stack_stack,
> >>>>   	.address	= save_stack_address,
> >>>then why not check the return value of ->address(), -1 indicate there is
> >>>no room to store any pointer.
> >>
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Indeed. It also looks good to me even though it has to propagate the condition
> >>between callback functions. I will modify it if it's better.
> >
> >Do you also think it would be better to make it propagate the result of
> >->address() rather than add a new callback, say, end_walk?
> >
> It's up to you. In my opinion, end_walk is better for reading.

I also prefer the way this patch works.

> >>
> >>Thank you.
> >>Byungchul
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>   	.walk_stack	= print_context_stack,
> >>>>+	.end_walk	= save_stack_end,
> >>>>   };
> >>>>
> >>>>   static const struct stacktrace_ops save_stack_ops_nosched = {
> >>>>
> >