On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 11:47 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Friday 24 February 2006 11:41, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch cleans up the clutter of x86_64 stack traces, making the > > output closer to what i386 and sparc64 stack traces look like. It uses > > print_symbol instead of resolving the symbols manually, and prints one > > frame per line instead of displaying multiple frames per line. I left > > the other stuff in the stack dump alone; this affects only the frame > > list. > > > > I know this has been brought up before > > (http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.0/2238.html, > > although I noticed a slight problem w/ that patch, as __print_symbol > > returns void); however, for people that don't spend all their time > > looking at x86_64 backtraces, I think this consistency shouldn't be > > scoffed at. When you switch back and forth between different archs, > > x86_64's backtrace is cluttered and confusing in comparison. > > If the formatting of the oopses is your only problem you are a > lucky man. > That would be nice. Unfortunately, I'm trying to figure out why my dual opteron box likes to push the load up to 15 and then hang while doing i/o to the 3ware 9500S-8 card. Looks like the load/d-state processes are caused by a whole lot (well, MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS) of pdflush processes spinning on base->lock in lock_timer_base(); not sure if that's intentional or not, but it seems rather odd. Whether the hanging is related to the high load remains to be seen. > The problem is your new format uses more screen estate, which is precious > after an oops because the VGA scrollback is so small. > That is why i rejected the earlier attempts at changing this. > I don't see why this is a problem. Other architectures have done this for ages, without problems. I suspect most people get their backtraces from either serial console or logs, as copying them down from the screen or taking a picture of the panic is a rather large pain. It seems like you're penalizing everyone for a few select use cases. Of course, this is all opinion.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- From: "Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- References:
- [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- From: Andres Salomon <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][WIP] DIO simplification and AIO-DIO stability
- Next by Date: Re: Mapping to 0x0
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86_64 stack trace cleanup
- Index(es):
 |