* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 16 May 2025 16:39:56 -0700 > Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Steve, > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 01:27:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 May 2025 18:34:35 -0400 > > > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > This has modifications in x86 and I would like it to go through the x86 > > > > tree. Preferably it can go into this merge window so we can focus on getting > > > > perf and ftrace to work on top of this. > > > > > > I think it may be best for me to remove the two x86 specific patches, and > > > rebuild the ftrace work on top of it. For testing, I'll just keep those two > > > patches in my tree locally, but then I can get this moving for this merge > > > window. > > > > Maybe I asked this before but I don't remember if I got the answer. :) > > How does it handle task exits as it won't go to userspace? I guess it'll > > lose user callstacks for exit syscalls and other termination paths. > > > > Similarly, it will miss user callstacks in the samples at the end of > > profiling if the target tasks remain in the kernel (or they sleep). > > It looks like a fundamental limitation of the deferred callchains. > > > > Ah, I think I forgot about that. I believe the exit path can also be a > faultable path. All it needs is a hook to do the exit. Is there any > "task work" clean up on exit? I need to take a look. Could you please not rush this facility into v6.16? It barely had any design review so far, and I'm still not entirely sure about the approach. Thanks, Ingo
