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 S1754885AbaI2Ua0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:30:26 -0400
Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:42251 "EHLO
	one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750970AbaI2UaZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:30:25 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:30:23 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        dave@sr71.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        eranian@google.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use faster check for modules in backtrace on 64bit
Message-ID: <20140929203023.GA8196@two.firstfloor.org>
References: <1411774277-4198-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <1411774277-4198-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org>
 <20140929114212.GG5430@worktop>
 <20140929152145.GB1629@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140929152145.GB1629@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:21:45AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:42:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > 
> > > This has the (small) potential to get a false positive on a pointer to a
> > > data segment in a module.  However since we also use the frame pointer
> > > chain as initial sanity check I think the danger of this is very low.
> > > 
> > 
> > So this has come up several times; and the answer has always been, why
> > not make the __module_address() thing a rb-tree instead of a linear
> > loop. So I suppose I'll ask that again, why not?
> 
> Why do things complicated, if they can be done simple too?

Also I investigated it now, but we don't have RCU support for rbtrees.
So it would need some kind of locking for the reader, which is a show
stopper.

-Andi