Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86: undwarf unwinder

2017-06-29 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:12:56AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > I'm not tied to the 'undwarf' name, other naming ideas are welcome. > > > > Ha, a new bike shed painting job! ;-) > > > > I think 'undwarf' isn't a bad name, it's short, catchy and describes the > > purpose > > of the effort.

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86: undwarf unwinder

2017-06-29 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:55:47AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > Undwarf vs frame pointers > > - > > > > With frame pointers enabled, GCC adds instrumentation code to every > > function in the kernel. The kernel's .text size increases by ab

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] x86: undwarf unwinder

2017-06-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Undwarf vs frame pointers > - > > With frame pointers enabled, GCC adds instrumentation code to every > function in the kernel. The kernel's .text size increases by about > 3.2%, resulting in a broad kernel-wide slowdown. Measurements by Mel >

[PATCH v2 0/8] x86: undwarf unwinder

2017-06-28 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
v2: - 2x performance improvement by using a fast lookup table and splitting undwarf array into two parallel arrays (Andy L) - reduce data size by ~1MB by getting rid of 'len' field - sort and post-process data at boot time - don't search vmlinux tables for module addresses (Peter Z) - disable pr