* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

quoted text
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ok I will try with 50. If there are still a lot and often missing 
> > > traces with this depth, perhaps should we consider a hybrid solution 
> > > between ret stack and trampolines? We could use the normal ret stack 
> > > on struct info for most common cases and the trampoline when we are 
> > > exceeding the depth....
> > 
> > dunno, trampolines make me feel uneasy.
> > 
> > Could you set it to some really large value (200) and add a "max 
> > depth seen" variable perhaps, and see the maximum depth?
> 
> Don't run that on a box you care about ;-) But hopefully the stacks 
> will not collide. This should also depend on IRQSTACKS.

that reminds me: ti->ret_stack[] should be moved to task->ret_stack[]. 
That way we decouple its size from any kernel stack size limits. 
(thread-info resides at one end of the kernel stack, on x86)

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/