On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 14:26 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
> As Ben suggested, i changed LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE() to LOAD_REG_ADDR()
> as follows.
>
> - LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE(r4,ftrace_return_to_handler)
> + LOAD_REG_ADDR(r4,ftrace_return_to_handler)
>
> With this change compile time warnings ab
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 07:20 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Sachin, can you give me more details on how you built that kernel ? (or
give them again in case I missed them the first time around :-), ie,
wh
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 07:20 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > Sachin, can you give me more details on how you built that kernel ? (or
> > > > give them again in case I missed them the first time around :-), ie,
> > > > what toolc
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Sachin, can you give me more details on how you built that kernel ? (or
> > > give them again in case I missed them the first time around :-), ie,
> > > what toolchain, options, etc... or even better, give me remote access to
> > > the
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:00 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 06:25 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > .../...
> > > >
> > > > > Something is totally messed up here.
> > > >
> > > > Could it be that we don't handle R_PPC64_ADDR16_* relocs in
> > > > arch/power
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 06:25 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > .../...
> > >
> > > > Something is totally messed up here.
> > >
> > > Could it be that we don't handle R_PPC64_ADDR16_* relocs in
> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/modules/module_64.c ?
> > >
> > > Sachin, do you see a bunch of "Unk
> > .../...
> >
> > > Something is totally messed up here.
> >
> > Could it be that we don't handle R_PPC64_ADDR16_* relocs in
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/modules/module_64.c ?
> >
> > Sachin, do you see a bunch of "Unknown ADD relocation" in your dmesg ?
>
> Ben,
>
> The thing is, this is kernel
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 14:37 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 00:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >982: R_PPC64_ADDR16_HIGHEST
> > ftrace_return_to_handler
> > 984: 60 84 00 00 ori r4,r4,0
> > 986: R_PPC64_ADDR16
On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 00:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>982: R_PPC64_ADDR16_HIGHEST
> ftrace_return_to_handler
> 984: 60 84 00 00 ori r4,r4,0
> 986: R_PPC64_ADDR16_HIGHER
> ftrace_return_to_handler
> 988: 78 84 07 c6 rldicr r4,r4,
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:57 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I'm going through old email, and I found this. Do you still see this
> > error. I don't recall seeing it myself.
> >
> I can still recreate this with 31-rc9. When i enable tracing
> with function_graph i notice the
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 11:02 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Ah, seems the bug happens to be in the module handling. Does the call
> > back always have .mod_return_to_handler?
> >
> Yes. Every time it ends up in .mod_return_to_handler
Hmm, I still can not reproduce it, and
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 11:02 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Ah, seems the bug happens to be in the module handling. Does the call
back always have .mod_return_to_handler?
Yes. Every time it ends up in .mod_return_to_handler
BTW, do
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 11:02 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Ah, seems the bug happens to be in the module handling. Does the call
> > back always have .mod_return_to_handler?
> >
> Yes. Every time it ends up in .mod_return_to_handler
BTW, do you have CONFIG_IRQSTACK set?
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Ah, seems the bug happens to be in the module handling. Does the call
back always have .mod_return_to_handler?
Yes. Every time it ends up in .mod_return_to_handler
Thanks
-Sachin
This doesn't surprise me any. The module code is a bit harry, and
function graph does som
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:57 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I'm going through old email, and I found this. Do you still see this
> > error. I don't recall seeing it myself.
> >
> I can still recreate this with 31-rc9. When i enable tracing
> with function_graph i notice the
Steven Rostedt wrote:
I'm going through old email, and I found this. Do you still see this
error. I don't recall seeing it myself.
I can still recreate this with 31-rc9. When i enable tracing
with function_graph i notice the following oops. This happens
only once. Later if i try to enable/dis
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 16:10 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Thanks,
> >
> > I've seen issues with my PPC box and function graph, but the bugs were
> > also caused by other changes. I'll boot up my PPC64 box and see if
> > I see the same issues you have.
> >
> Hi Steven,
>
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Thanks,
I've seen issues with my PPC box and function graph, but the bugs were
also caused by other changes. I'll boot up my PPC64 box and see if
I see the same issues you have.
Hi Steven,
I can still recreate this issue with 2.6.31-rc5. Let me know
if i can provide an
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Sachin Sant wrote:
> While enabling function_graph tracer on a Power6 box, machine
> crashed with following trace. Kernel version is 2.6.31-rc3.
Thanks,
I've seen issues with my PPC box and function graph, but the bugs were
also caused by other changes. I'll boot up my PPC6
19 matches
Mail list logo
