[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150227143008.GQ5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:30:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, oleg@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] module: Optimize __module_address() using a latched
RB-tree
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:32:39PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> > One of the users of this is __kernel_text_address() which is employed in
> > many stack unwinders; which in turn are used by perf-callchain (possibly
> > from NMI context).
>
> Um, so the stack unwinders use "does this look like a kernel address"
> because we omit the frame pointer?
Not only because of that I think; also as a general robustness check.
I'm not sure people want their stack unwinder to go off into the woods.
> To keep that optimization, we add 220 non-trivial lines to module.c?
Can I make you feel better by writing more comments? I'm not sure we can
convince the arch people to take this test out. Its all over the place.
> Don't get me wrong, it's cute code, but I do wonder if at some point a
> grown up is going to come along and tell us to stop :)
Now where's the fun in that ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists