Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:36:43 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
       Corey Ashford <cjashfor@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] perf_counter: add more context information
Message-ID: <20090402113643.GF10828@elte.hu>
References: <20090402091158.291810516@chello.nl> <20090402091319.493101305@chello.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090402091319.493101305@chello.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1248
Lines: 42


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> Put in counts to tell which ips belong to what context.
> 
>   -----
>    | |  hv
>    | --
> nr | |  kernel
>    | --
>    | |  user
>   -----

btw., i have an observation about the format:

> -#define MAX_STACK_DEPTH		255
> +#define MAX_STACK_DEPTH		254
>  
>  struct perf_callchain_entry {
> -	u64	nr;
> +	u32	nr, hv, kernel, user;
>  	u64	ip[MAX_STACK_DEPTH];
>  };

For the special case of signal notifications, if the signal is 
delivered immediately to the same task that raised it (pid=0), the 
call chain is actually a still meaningful one: it is the stack that 
is below the currently executing signal handler context.

Wouldnt it make sense to record the full stack frame for that case, 
to allow walking/unwinding of the stack? Or can user-space do that 
just fine, based on its own signal context?

We are going to hard-code the "call-chain is a series of IPs, 
nothing else" model, and i'd like to make sure it's future-proof :)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/