On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:50:19PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > There is still one thing which I don't understand. Why __schedule() > (patched or the original) is not on the stack. The actual "sleep" > should happen in __switch_to_asm() which is C function now. And there is a > call to __switch_to_asm() in __schedule(). __schedule() thus should be on > the stack, shouldn't it? What am I missing? __switch_to_asm() pushes %rbp > on the stack...
Ah, this is an unwinder bug. get_frame_pointer() needs to be fixed so that for an inactive task it returns a pointer to inactive_task_frame.bp rather than the value of inactive_task_frame.bp itself. Will fix it. -- Josh
