Message-ID: <1499920123.5107.29.camel@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] x86: ORC unwinder (previously undwarf)
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>, 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>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:28:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170713041524.GC3044@two.firstfloor.org>
References: <cover.1499786555.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
         <87wp7dmgoo.fsf@firstfloor.org> <1499914980.5107.18.camel@gmx.de>
         <20170713041524.GC3044@two.firstfloor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1408
Lines: 34

On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 21:15 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:03:00AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 15:30 -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)
> > 
> > Sure the dwarf unwinder works well for crashes, but at the price of
> > demolishing ftrace/perf utility.
> 
> You mean the unwind performance?

Yeah, it hurts.. massively, has even been known to kill big boxen.

> That's a valid concern, but neither ORC nor dwarf are likely
> to address it. However most usages of ftrace/perf shouldn't be that
> depending on unwind performance -- just lower the frequency of your
> events. 
> 
> The only possible win is if the win from not using FP code is
> significant enough. On the x86 side the only modern CPUs that should really
> care about this are Atoms.

Nope, they all care.  Measure performance delta of fast/light stuff.

Maybe I'm expecting too much good stuff to follow, but don't spoil it
for me, I think I'm looking at a real winner :)

	-Mike