On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 03:44:21PM +0300, Ruslan Bilovol wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 04:18 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> >
> > I also have the coresponding kernel patch(es) here. IIRC I already sent
> > tham to LKML. I'll re-send them once there are more gcc's with
> > -fpatchable-function-entry
> > suppo
Hi,
On 10/13/2017 04:18 PM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:54:46PM +0300, Ruslan Bilovol wrote:
Hi Li,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Li Bin wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
Yeah, from 2014, we started to work on livepatch support on aarch64, and
in May 2015, we pushed the solution to
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:54:46PM +0300, Ruslan Bilovol wrote:
> Hi Li,
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Li Bin wrote:
> > Hi,
> [snip]
> >
> > Yeah, from 2014, we started to work on livepatch support on aarch64, and
> > in May 2015, we pushed the solution to the livepatch community[1] and g
Hi Li,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Li Bin wrote:
> Hi,
[snip]
>
> Yeah, from 2014, we started to work on livepatch support on aarch64, and
> in May 2015, we pushed the solution to the livepatch community[1] and gcc
> community (mfentry feature on aarch64)[2]. And then, there were an another
+++ Li Bin [29/03/17 09:50 +0800]:
Hi,
on 2017/3/29 8:03, Jessica Yu wrote:
+++ Miroslav Benes [28/03/17 13:16 +0200]:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote:
On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>
> > It's reported that the time
Hi,
on 2017/3/29 8:03, Jessica Yu wrote:
> +++ Miroslav Benes [28/03/17 13:16 +0200]:
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > It's reported that the time of in
+++ Miroslav Benes [28/03/17 13:16 +0200]:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote:
On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>
> > It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
> > out-tree modules is too long.
> >
> >
On 2017/3/28 19:16, Miroslav Benes wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote:
On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
out-tree modules is too long.
~ time sudo insmod kl
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, zhouchengming wrote:
> On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
> >
> > > It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
> > > out-tree modules is too long.
> > >
> > > ~ time sudo insmod klp
On 2017/3/28 17:00, Miroslav Benes wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
out-tree modules is too long.
~ time sudo insmod klp.ko
real0m23.799s
user0m0.036s
sys 0m21.256s
Is this stable through seve
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Zhou Chengming wrote:
> It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
> out-tree modules is too long.
>
> ~ time sudo insmod klp.ko
> real 0m23.799s
> user 0m0.036s
> sys 0m21.256s
Is this stable through several (>=10) runs? 23 seconds are really
It's reported that the time of insmoding a klp.ko for one of our
out-tree modules is too long.
~ time sudo insmod klp.ko
real0m23.799s
user0m0.036s
sys 0m21.256s
Then we found the reason: klp_find_object_symbol() uses the interface
kallsyms_on_each_symbol() even for finding module sym
12 matches
Mail list logo
