[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250122135700.GS7145@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:57:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Jordan Rome <jordalgo@...a.com>,
Sam James <sam@...too.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Weinan Liu <wnliu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 29/39] unwind_user/deferred: Add unwind cache
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 06:31:21PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Cache the results of the unwind to ensure the unwind is only performed
> once, even when called by multiple tracers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/unwind_deferred_types.h | 8 +++++++-
> kernel/unwind/deferred.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/unwind_deferred_types.h b/include/linux/unwind_deferred_types.h
> index 9749824aea09..6f71a06329fb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/unwind_deferred_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/unwind_deferred_types.h
> @@ -2,8 +2,14 @@
> #ifndef _LINUX_UNWIND_USER_DEFERRED_TYPES_H
> #define _LINUX_UNWIND_USER_DEFERRED_TYPES_H
>
> -struct unwind_task_info {
> +struct unwind_cache {
> unsigned long *entries;
> + unsigned int nr_entries;
> + u64 cookie;
> +};
If you make the return to user path clear nr_entries you don't need a
second cookie field I think.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists