Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > (lockdep tells us that a mutex was taken at "mutex_lock+0x8/0xa", which is
> > > fairly useless.  We need to report who the caller of mutex_lock() was).
> > 
> > yeah this has been bugging me as well; either via a wrapper around
> > mutex_lock or via the gcc option to backwalk the stack (but that only
> > works with frame pointers enabled.. sigh)
> 
> Actually, __builtin_return_address(0) works OK with 
> -fomit-frame-pointer, and that's all we need here.

yes - but that means we'd have to propagate the EIP through all the 
mutex calls (and the assembly functions, etc.). I tried it and it's 
really a nightmare. What we can do is to have better information if 
FRAME_POINTERS is enabled.

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