public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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