Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace

[Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:22:46AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > Also, could you please rename the _norm names to _fast or so, to signal that this 
> > > > is a faster but less reliable method to get a stack dump? Nobody knows what 
> > > > '_norm' means, but '_fast' is pretty self-explanatory.
> > > 
> > > Hm, but is print_context_stack_bp() variant really less reliable?  From
> > > what I can tell, its only differences vs print_context_stack() are:
> > > 
> > > - It doesn't scan the stack for "guesses" (which are 'unreliable' and
> > >   are ignored by the ops->address() callback anyway).
> > > 
> > > - It stops if ops->address() returns an error (which in this case means
> > >   the array is full anyway).
> > > 
> > > - It stops if the address isn't a kernel text address.  I think this
> > >   shouldn't normally be possible unless there's some generated code like
> > >   bpf on the stack.  Maybe it could be slightly improved for this case.
> > > 
> > > So instead of adding a new save_stack_trace_fast() variant, why don't we
> > > just modify the existing save_stack_trace() to use
> > > print_context_stack_bp()?
> > 
> > I'm not sure this is a good idea. First of all if the kernel isn't built with
> > frame pointers, all you have is wild walk guesses.
> 
> True, though I'd argue that if frame pointers are disabled then
> save_stack_trace() should return an empty trace.  But admittedly, that

As Frederic said, I think, some save_stack_trace() users may want to
check the 'guesses', in other words, it's not good idea for
save_stack_trace() to return an empty trace when frame pointers are
disabled. No?

> > There are several different users of save_stack_trace() in the kernel, we can't
> > be sure that all of them are interested in dropping those guesses.
> > 
> > So I'd rather advocate in favour of a new seperate helper.
> 
> So how about we change save_stack_trace() to use print_context_stack()
> for CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=n and print_context_stack_bp() for
> CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y?  That would preserve the existing behavior, no?

Even if CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y, someone may want to guess, doesn't they?

> 
> -- 
> Josh