Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752441AbdGLWaf (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:30:35 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:9605 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750705AbdGLWad (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:30:33 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,351,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="286189652" From: Andi Kleen To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Jiri Slaby , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf) References: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:30:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Josh Poimboeuf's message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:33:37 -0500") Message-ID: <87wp7dmgoo.fsf@firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 533 Lines: 14 Josh Poimboeuf 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) As far as I can tell this whole thing has only downsides compared to the dwarf unwinder that was earlier proposed. I don't see a single advantage. -Andi