| To: | ralf@linux-mips.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: preempt_schedule_irq missing from mfinfo[]? |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:28:42 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | djohnson+linuxmips@sw.starentnetworks.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20050706090138.GC3226@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20050705200308.GE18772@linux-mips.org> <20050706.122912.71087098.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <20050706090138.GC3226@linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:01:38 +0100, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> >>>>> said: >> You can find the caller of "schedule()" even with simple >> thread_saved_pc(). I think it is enough so I do not think it is >> worth to fix (and maintain) current minfo[]. ralf> The alternative would be to finally bite the bullet and add a ralf> wchan field to thread_struct and initialize it in all the ralf> sleeping functions. ralf> The IA-64 people have something like a DWARF-based frame ralf> unwinder but that just seems to heavy. Another alternative would be: 1. Using KALLSYMS feature in kernel to obtain an address in __sched/__lock function. This might solve static function (and maintainance) issue. 2. Unwinding stack based on "addiu sp,sp,-NN" instruction in prologue of the function. This might solve omit-frame-pointer issue. Anybody try? :-) --- Atsushi Nemoto |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Origin 200 Status, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Origin 200 Status, Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: preempt_schedule_irq missing from mfinfo[]?, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Seg fault when compiled with -mabi=64 and -lpthread, Daniel Jacobowitz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |