Re: dwarf unwinder question

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 23.11.15 at 14:27, <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
> On Monday 23 November 2015 06:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 23.11.15 at 14:03, <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
>>> I was wondering if u could answer a question in that respect: 
>>> arch/arc/kernel/unwind.c
>>>
>>> If the binary search for a PC fails, it resorts to linear search, which for 
>>> our
>>> case was taking 3 million cycles (vs. normal ~2000).
>>> Do you remember why this linear search step was needed - after all the binary
>>> lookup table is created out of early parsing of the same data.
>>>
>>> The fail scenario is for hand asm symbols lacking gcc generated dwarf info 
>>> and we
>>> don't have yet the CFI pseudo ops support in assembler.
>>> I can fix memset etc to have empty dwarf info, still unwinder needs this 
>>> fixing.
>>>
>>> In case of perf, an overflow interrupt in hand optimized memset leads into 
>>> the
>>> unwinder slow path linear search which causes RCU stalls and such.
>>> I'm going to remove it but was wondering if u could provide some historic 
>>> background.
>> Iirc there was no binary lookup at all originally. When it got added,
>> it seemed odd to remove the linear lookup altogether (want to keep
>> it at least for the case where the binary lookup table couldn't be
>> built for whatever reason), and code structure seemed most
>> reasonable to simply do one after the other instead of just either.
>> I'm pretty sure the linear lookup could be skipped if you're sure the
>> binary lookup table is correct and complete.
> 
> Thx for quick reply. I'll remove the linear search as part of many other 
> tweaks to
> speed it up - we can elide a lot of general dwarf checks / rechecks - given 
> that
> it is used only for kernel unwinding (not user space).

Don't tell Linus if you're removing any checks...

Jan