From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481F928AAEB for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2025 19:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761939590; cv=none; b=WAmgeAHERImkNp5vAOCtspmGOusbkGMAVYdMjVKaWMpYOjI6ajiFmieR4cDOYNJkEM3qT0x7SimCGeXziUYgZh8D6sPtJI0AYwJVZzrSxwGF9AWBpJIDWOBtss9v8EooOB7tqIgukP/eY330GEA7Q/YpqTcfZhZhf7NCft7/FvQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761939590; c=relaxed/simple; bh=iHsVkPE+Z9ggmLNq959L/8TAa97VKNkN4qQUPJE0aE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=t7alwxzj+Z2A0sYlZme6xWCSuVsrCLpHXfbIh/M3llsmki/TgLlGwMkqqthp2hQNjy2Y5crjgqyZW7Bhonu4PKGMENWAj87JN8NA9Yts5qPtGSIEHMNYZg8b0zV2HqWKsAzEpfPhFb+wyGJXQd4ENdevYdWM3YsfHRo8A6EnpZ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pt0AOnvs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="pt0AOnvs" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC9B1C4CEE7; Fri, 31 Oct 2025 19:39:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761939589; bh=iHsVkPE+Z9ggmLNq959L/8TAa97VKNkN4qQUPJE0aE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pt0AOnvsvTofTICodu6nZsc95Z79/Ra/BSQyMwByChIv+zYuuwE4wJZ9rwOyyPUgv aEqpqjUtnomJbLOZkQDHUorO5y3ddlJuVojCuH565cHSq1ACskkuJVYnOIBgYS0npb OVbh3u+/cO9v/Wy8+DCb1UHVINavRtKKWpUdydzVCdjsOGgwm5UZueVQzozFNnuyCr 1+/A7hrfH/5h85jv2lsssJvHGntTAg3RtGOBi3rKOqaltMmomaYVBzXZjwtlA3oSeM 4sl61CDUsD3nA5fGr1Y7HSQP2ajPDIfQc2wJSGHwstPTqjw50B7z4GV+IMI72vvaaf 7LvkpZCeq80ww== Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 12:39:48 -0700 From: Namhyung Kim To: Tony Jones Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, irogers@google.com Subject: Re: addr2line performance Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello, On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:30:21AM -0700, Tony Jones wrote: > Hi. > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218996#c1 mentions > "there are proposals to move this logic to being from a library again. > I think the addr2line processing attempted is valiant but ultimately > using a library will be best" (this was when LLVM addr2line support > was already present), > > Obviously the test patch mentioned in the above bug doesn't address > the underlying performance issue, only better classifying a timeout > error. > > We have a customer bug complaining about the performance of addr2line. > I'm seeing cases where it's taking over 20 seconds wall clock to > resolve certain addresses which obviously causes the io_timer to trip > but the performance of the success path isn't great either. > > Obviously BFD isn't an option and (for various reasons) we can't use > LLVM for this specific distro so I'm looking at the performance > of addr2line. > > Can someone point me to the prior "using a library" discussion > referenced in the above bug or whatever the current thinking is. I > couldn't find anything searching the archive. I think we can just use libdw. I tried it in the past but never finished. :( Thanks, Namhyung