Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-06 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:34:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:48:11 -0400 > Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h > > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h > > > index 5ab5200b2bdc..13a4832cfb00 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:34:55 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > Here's the best way to explain this. The code is using the stack trace > to figure out which function is the stack hog. Or perhaps a serious of Why so serious? s/serious/series/ -- Steve > stack hogs. On x86, a call stores the re

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 11:48:11 -0400 Joel Fernandes wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h > > index 5ab5200b2bdc..13a4832cfb00 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ >

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-06 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:11:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 12:09:20 -0400 > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:22:59 -0400 > > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > I think you are not explaining the issue correctly. From looking at the > > > document, I think

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-06 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:25:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > [+Akashi, since he may remember more of the gory details here] > > On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 04:26:42AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:22:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [snip] > > > > There is not PC i

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-06 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:25:25 +0100 Will Deacon wrote: > This can be read as "subtract 144 bytes (32*4 + 16) from the stack pointer, > write the frame record there and then update the stack pointer to point at the > bottom of the newly allocated stack", which means that the array 'a[32]' sits > dir

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-05 Thread Jiping Ma
On 2019年08月03日 00:09, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:22:59 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: I think you are not explaining the issue correctly. From looking at the document, I think what you want to say is that the LR is saved *after* the data for the function. Is that correct? If s

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-05 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:25:25 +0100 Will Deacon wrote: > So, I completely agree with Steve that we shouldn't be littering the core code > with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64, but we probably do need something in the arch > backend > if we're going to do this properly, and that in turn is likely to need a ver

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-05 Thread Will Deacon
[+Akashi, since he may remember more of the gory details here] On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 04:26:42AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:22:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > [snip] > > > There is not PC in ARM64 stack, LR is used to for walk_stackframe in > > > ARM64. Tere is

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-03 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 4:26 AM Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:22:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > [snip] > > > There is not PC in ARM64 stack, LR is used to for walk_stackframe in > > > ARM64. Tere is no the issue in ARM32 because there is PC in ARM32 stack. > > > PC is us

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-03 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:22:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: [snip] > > There is not PC in ARM64 stack, LR is used to for walk_stackframe in > > ARM64. Tere is no the issue in ARM32 because there is PC in ARM32 stack. > > PC is used to calculate the stack size in trace_stack.c, so the > > functi

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 12:09:20 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:22:59 -0400 > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > I think you are not explaining the issue correctly. From looking at the > > document, I think what you want to say is that the LR is saved *after* > > the data for the funct

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:22:59 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > I think you are not explaining the issue correctly. From looking at the > document, I think what you want to say is that the LR is saved *after* > the data for the function. Is that correct? If so, then yes, it would > cause the stack trac

Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

2019-08-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:41:03 +0800 Jiping Ma wrote: First of all, this patch will not be accepted. I will not allow arch specific defines in generic code like this. That said, there are better solutions. > There is not PC in ARM64 stack, LR is used to for walk_stackframe in > ARM64. Tere is no t