mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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).


  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®