Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 7:55 pm

On Aug 29, 2007, at 19:01:57, Eric Sandeen wrote:

How about turning off preemption and using a per-CPU buffer?   
Alternatively you could turn off IRQs, poke a per-CPU value to clue  
in any incoming NMIs, and switch to a separate stack.  I suppose if  
you wanted it to work with all of 16 bytes of stack left on both  
thread and IRQ stacks, you could have separate per-CPU NMI stacks;  
the stack-dump would be poking a special per-CPU value and sending  
ourselves an NMI.

There are probably a half dozen other variants on ways to run  
screaming to the CPU saying "It hurts mommy!" and get a new stack in  
which we can play for a while.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed Aug 29, 6:34 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Mike Snitzer, (Wed May 28, 10:36 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed May 28, 11:13 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Denys Vlasenko, (Fri Aug 31, 7:11 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Jörn, (Fri Aug 31, 10:35 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Denys Vlasenko, (Fri Aug 31, 1:16 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Jesper Juhl, (Wed Aug 29, 6:53 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed Aug 29, 7:01 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 29, 7:55 pm)