Re: [PATCH v4 06/15] lockdep: Make save_trace can skip stack tracing of the current

Byungchul Park
2017-01-13T00:18:41Z

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:37:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:02PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Currently, save_trace() always performs save_stack_trace() for the
> > current. However, crossrelease needs to use stack trace data of another
> > context instead of the current. So add a parameter for skipping stack
> > tracing of the current and make it use trace data, which is already
> > saved by crossrelease framework.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 3eaa11c..11580ec 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -387,15 +387,22 @@ static void print_lockdep_off(const char *bug_msg)
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > -static int save_trace(struct stack_trace *trace)
> > +static int save_trace(struct stack_trace *trace, int skip_tracing)
> > {
> > - trace->nr_entries = 0;
> > - trace->max_entries = MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > - trace->entries = stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > + unsigned int nr_avail = MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - nr_stack_trace_entries;
> >
> > - trace->skip = 3;
> > -
> > - save_stack_trace(trace);
> > + if (skip_tracing) {
> > + trace->nr_entries = min(trace->nr_entries, nr_avail);
> > + memcpy(stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries, trace->entries,
> > + trace->nr_entries * sizeof(trace->entries[0]));
> > + trace->entries = stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > + } else {
> > + trace->nr_entries = 0;
> > + trace->max_entries = nr_avail;
> > + trace->entries = stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > + trace->skip = 3;
> > + save_stack_trace(trace);
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> > * Some daft arches put -1 at the end to indicate its a full trace.
>
> That's pretty nasty semantics.. so when skip_tracing it modifies trace
> in-place.

I agree. Let me think more and enhance it.

Thank you,
Byungchul