[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1499914980.5107.18.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 05:03:00 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 15:30 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> writes:
> >
> > The ORC data format does have a few downsides compared to DWARF. The
> > ORC unwind tables take up ~1MB more memory than DWARF eh_frame tables.
> >
> Can we have an option to just use dwarf instead? For people
> who don't want to waste a MB+ to solve a problem that doesn't
> exist (as proven by many years of opensuse kernel experience)
Sure the dwarf unwinder works well for crashes, but at the price of
demolishing ftrace/perf utility.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists