From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chuck Ebbert Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:12:29 -0400 Message-ID: <460007ED.5010805@redhat.com> References: <20070319.120854.30182994.davem@davemloft.net> <200703192159.42396.ak@suse.de> <20070319.204712.118947830.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, jbeulich@novell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, anthony@codemonkey.ws, akpm@linux-foundation.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, David Miller To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: = > I'm conflicted about the dwarf unwinder. I was off doing other things > at the time so I missed the pain, but I do have a distinct recollection of > the back traces on x86_64 being distinctly worse the on i386. Lately > I haven't seen that so it may be I was misinterpreting what I was > seeing, and the compiler optimizations were what gave me such weird > back traces. = > = Well, if you compile x86_64 with frame pointers it helps a bit because the compiler doesn't tail merge function calls. But the stack backtrace ignores the frame pointers even if they're present, unlike i386 which will use them.