From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] objtool: fix build of 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:07:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171108080722.GS3165@worktop.lehotels.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1711071607160.27454@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 04:25:10PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > The technical reason for avoiding the guess unwinder is that it's
> > sketchy: it gives false positive results.
>
> I've always used kernels without frame pointer and I don't see any problem
> with decoding stack traces with some phantom entries that were left in the
> stack - it's easy to find out which functions could call which functions
> and discard the phantom entries.
>
> > Not only for oopses, but for all the other users of the unwinder:
> > /proc/<pid>/stack, perf, lockdep, etc. So it's a correctness issue.
>
> Experts need these features, but casual users don't.
>
> > I agree with you that the frame pointer unwinder has drawbacks, but if
> > somebody cares about those drawbacks, I would consider that person an
> > "expert" ;-)
>
> The Kconfig entry says that frame pointers degrade performance by 5-10% -
> so almost any user would care about it, not just experts.
You're running a 32bit kernel.... isn't that the same as not caring
about performance in any case?
I suppose the solution you're looking for is making ORC work for it; but
given hardly anybody still cares about 32bit x86 you'll probably have to
do it yourself.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-08 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-06 23:27 [PATCH] objtool: fix build of 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace Mikulas Patocka
2017-11-07 17:55 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-11-07 21:25 ` Mikulas Patocka
2017-11-08 8:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-11-27 17:32 ` Sven Joachim
2017-11-27 19:27 ` Josh Poimboeuf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171108080722.GS3165@worktop.lehotels.local \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox