From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@kernel.org>
To: Jens Remus <jremus@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, sashiko@lists.linux.dev,
Indu Bhagat <ibhagatgnu@gmail.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 12/19] unwind_user/sframe: Add .sframe validation option
Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 08:30:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260513083042.56087bc4@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c865e97c-416a-4c3e-8817-9d3f4a8f004c@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, 12 May 2026 16:23:34 +0200
Jens Remus <jremus@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Given the wort case complexity of the validation is
> O(#FDE) * O(log2(#FRE_per_FDE)), should it perform the following after
> having processed a FDE including all of its potentially 2^16-1 FREs?
>
> if (need_resched())
> cond_resched();
BTW, you would only need:
cond_resched();
as that checks need_resched(), no need to do it twice.
>
> What about the unwinding? Given the worst case complexity is
> O(log2(#FDE)) + O(#FRE_per_FDE), should it perform the above after
> having performed the binary search for the FDE (before performing
> the linear search for the FRE)?
That said, I'm holding off of adding new cond_resched() as PREEMPT_LAZY
is becoming the default, and there should be no more PREEMPT_NONE or
VOLUNTARY.
I think you can ignore this for now.
-- Steve
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-13 12:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260505121718.3572346-13-jremus@linux.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20260505183254.AF63AC2BCB4@smtp.kernel.org>
2026-05-12 14:23 ` [PATCH v14 12/19] unwind_user/sframe: Add .sframe validation option Jens Remus
2026-05-13 12:30 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
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=20260513083042.56087bc4@fedora \
--to=rostedt@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ibhagatgnu@gmail.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=jremus@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
/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