Re: [PATCH v5] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces captured in uprobe

2024-07-18 Thread Andrii Nakryiko
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:45 AM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:29:23 -0700 > Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > Ping. What's the status of this patch? Is it just waiting until after > > the merge window, or it got lost? > > It's probably best to re-ping after rc1 is out. With recent e

Re: [PATCH v5] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces captured in uprobe

2024-07-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:29:23 -0700 Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > Ping. What's the status of this patch? Is it just waiting until after > the merge window, or it got lost? It's probably best to re-ping after rc1 is out. With recent events, a lot of us are way behind in our work. Thanks, -- Steve

Re: [PATCH v5] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces captured in uprobe

2024-07-18 Thread Andrii Nakryiko
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:36 PM Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to > install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the > function. This is often going to be `push %rbp` instruction in function > preamble, which me

[PATCH v5] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces captured in uprobe

2024-07-10 Thread Andrii Nakryiko
When tracing user functions with uprobe functionality, it's common to install the probe (e.g., a BPF program) at the first instruction of the function. This is often going to be `push %rbp` instruction in function preamble, which means that within that function frame pointer hasn't been established