I find the following patch to make saved stack traces so much easier to
decipher. There might be other uses of save_stack_trace() that I am not
aware of, though. Also, I suggest changing the underlying struct
stack_trace to include the reliable/unreliable information. This, however,
requires all users of save_stack_trace() and all arches saving this
information to change.
Kind regards,
Vegard Nossum
From 5edfd896c5f0d728111df3d8cae729a375f29d3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:23:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] x86: don't save unreliable stack trace entries
Currently, there is no way for print_stack_trace() to determine whether a
given stack trace entry was deemed reliable or not, simply because
save_stack_trace() does not record this information. (Perhaps needless to
say, this makes the saved stack traces A LOT harder to read, and probably
with no other benefits, since debugging features that use
save_stack_trace() most likely also require frame pointers, etc.)
This patch reverts to the old behaviour of only recording the reliable trace
entries for saved stack traces.
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c | 4 ++++
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 02f0f61..c28c342 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ static int save_stack_stack(void *data, char *name)
static void save_stack_address(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable)
{
struct stack_trace *trace = data;
+ if (!reliable)
+ return;
if (trace->skip > 0) {
trace->skip--;
return;
@@ -37,6 +39,8 @@ static void
save_stack_address_nosched(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable)
{
struct stack_trace *trace = (struct stack_trace *)data;
+ if (!reliable)
+ return;
if (in_sched_functions(addr))
return;
if (trace->skip > 0) {
--
1.5.3.8
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
