On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 18:10 +0800, Zhao Forrest wrote:
> On 4/11/07, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 02:53 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > > I'm confused - which end of ths stack is up?
> > >
> > > cpuset_exit doesn't call do_exit, rather it's the other
> > > way around. But put_files_struct doesn't call do_exit,
> > > rather do_exit calls __exit_files calls put_files_struct.
> >
> > I'm guessing its x86_64 which generates crap traces.
> >
> Yes, it's x86_64. Is there a reliable way to generate stack traces under x86_64?
> Can enabling "[ ] Compile the kernel with frame pointers" help?
Sometimes, the best is to redo the undo of the dwarf based stack
unwinder.
But as you said, that _huge_ number of buffers might be the issue, I'm
looking through the codepaths from __blkdev_put on downwards, I suspect
we hold a single lock somewhere,...
So hold on with patching the unwinder back in (unless of course you
fancy doing so :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
