Re: Fix for source line numbers for x86_64 modules
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
----- "John Wright (ALPS, Fort Collins)" <john.wright(a)hp.com> wrote:
> crash> dis -l register_kprobes
> < never returns >
I wonder if it would eventually return after minutes or hours? (Not
that this is acceptable - I'm just curious.)
Anyway, I tried it again, and it came back 6 minutes later,
so my "never returns" claim was a bit of a exaggeration...
Sorry about that...
But stranger still -- I mis-typed the hanging command above.
It's takes several minutes to run "dis -l register_kprobe", whereas
"dis -l register_kprobes" works OK -- they're both in the same
neighborhood:
ffffffff813af401 (T) register_kprobe
ffffffff813afac4 (T) register_kprobes
> With your new patch (and unpatched for that matter) it works OK.
Great! Sorry for the original mess. It was quick and dirty, and solved
the specific problem Bob and I were having. I think this version is
correct, though.
Queued for the next release.
Again, thanks very much,
Dave
Thursday, 24 September
Thu, 24 Sep
2:46 p.m.
New subject: Fix for source line numbers for x86_64 modules
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 03:36:16PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
----- "John Wright (ALPS, Fort Collins)" <john.wright(a)hp.com> wrote:
> > crash> dis -l register_kprobes
> > < never returns >
>
> I wonder if it would eventually return after minutes or hours? (Not
> that this is acceptable - I'm just curious.)
Anyway, I tried it again, and it came back 6 minutes later,
so my "never returns" claim was a bit of a exaggeration...
Sorry about that...
But stranger still -- I mis-typed the hanging command above.
It's takes several minutes to run "dis -l register_kprobe", whereas
"dis -l register_kprobes" works OK -- they're both in the same
neighborhood:
ffffffff813af401 (T) register_kprobe
ffffffff813afac4 (T) register_kprobes
I suspect the reason register_kprobe takes so much longer is that it has
way more instructions than register_kprobes. (The last instruction for
register_kbrobes is 96 bytes from the first, whereas for register_kprobe
it's 1146, on my 2.6.29-based kernel.) For each instruction, crash is
asking gdb for line number information, so for really long functions,
the slowness with the original patch is exacerbated.
> > With your new patch (and unpatched for that matter) it
works OK.
>
> Great! Sorry for the original mess. It was quick and dirty, and solved
> the specific problem Bob and I were having. I think this version is
> correct, though.
Queued for the next release.
Great, thanks!
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| John Wright <john.wright(a)hp.com> |
| HP Mission Critical OS Enablement & Solution Test (MOST) |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
5542
days inactive
5542
days old
devel@lists.crash-utility.osci.io
1 comments
2 participants
tags (0)
participants (2)
-
Dave Anderson -
John Wright (ALPS, Fort Collins)