From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751218AbdFANMK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:12:10 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:37833 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751062AbdFANMI (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:12:08 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:12:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/10] x86/unwind: add undwarf unwinder
Message-ID: <20170601131204.odhgktimjz6czdyu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1496293620.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <89552d4047e5aed843f7b6a54277f9af62da6a82.1496293620.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20170601121356.5yoeq74el77sewoo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170601123609.ku5zq2huhlneq2dn@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170601123609.ku5zq2huhlneq2dn@treble>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:36:09AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:13:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So we do that lookup for every single frame. That's going to hurt.
> > 
> > Would it make sense to cache the last 'module' in an attempt to at least
> > avoid that lookup again? Something like so:
> 
> The only thing with caching the module is, what if the module goes away?

Yeah.. *boom* ;-) We could of course play games with module_get() and
module_put(), but meh.

> Based on your previous comment I was thinking I would disable preemption
> for the entire unwind_next_frame() step, but not *between* steps.  I
> suppose we could require the unwind caller to disable preemption but I'd
> like to avoid that if possible.

Right, keeping it disabled across a frame should be ok I suppose.