linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: preempt_schedule_irq missing from mfinfo[]?

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: preempt_schedule_irq missing from mfinfo[]?
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:14:23 +0100
Cc: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>, djohnson+linuxmips@sw.starentnetworks.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507060952500.9536@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <17093.19241.353160.946039@cortez.sw.starentnetworks.com> <20050703.005921.25910131.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20050705200308.GE18772@linux-mips.org> <20050706.122912.71087098.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.61L.0507060952500.9536@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 09:58:50AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > Yes, but many sleeping/scheduling (such as schedule_timeout(),
> > __down(), etc.)  are compiled without -fno-omit-frame-pointer, so
> > you can not find the caller of such functions anyway.
> 
>  Of course you can -- __builtin_return_address().  It should be enough for 
> `ps' to fetch useful data from "System.map", shouldn't it?

__builtin_return_address() is what those function could use themselves.
In this case it's about another piece of code unwinding the stackframe
until we hit a caller address that is not a scheduling function.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>