This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravi

To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:12:29 -0400
Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxxx, jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:23:54 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <m13b40wnrb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <20070319.120854.30182994.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200703192159.42396.ak@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703192015020.6730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070319.204712.118947830.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m13b40wnrb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070302)
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I'm conflicted about the dwarf unwinder.  I was off doing other things
> at the time so I missed the pain, but I do have a distinct recollection of
> the back traces on x86_64 being distinctly worse the on i386.  Lately
> I haven't seen that so it may be I was misinterpreting what I was
> seeing, and the compiler optimizations were what gave me such weird
> back traces.  

Well, if you compile x86_64 with frame pointers it helps a bit because
the compiler doesn't tail merge function calls. But the stack backtrace
ignores the frame pointers even if they're present, unlike i386 which
will use them.

Xen-devel mailing list

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