From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
arcml <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dwarf unwinder question
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:27:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075F44D2E16@IN01WEMBXA.internal.synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56531F8502000078000B7D52@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
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.
>
> Jan
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).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-23 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-23 13:03 Vineet Gupta
2015-11-23 13:15 ` Jan Beulich
2015-11-23 13:27 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2015-11-23 13:42 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075F44D2E16@IN01WEMBXA.internal.synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®