DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5CE647CE0C
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:47:59 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)
Message-ID: <20170712224759.a32747n3oso245ij@treble>
References: <cover.1499786555.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <87wp7dmgoo.fsf@firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87wp7dmgoo.fsf@firstfloor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 694
Lines: 18

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:30:31PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.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)
> 
> 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.

Improved speed, reliability, maintainability.  Are those not advantages?

-- 
Josh