Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use faster check for modules in backtrace on 64bit

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:30:23PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:21:45AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:42:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > This has the (small) potential to get a false positive on a pointer to a
> > > > data segment in a module.  However since we also use the frame pointer
> > > > chain as initial sanity check I think the danger of this is very low.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > So this has come up several times; and the answer has always been, why
> > > not make the __module_address() thing a rb-tree instead of a linear
> > > loop. So I suppose I'll ask that again, why not?
> > 
> > Why do things complicated, if they can be done simple too?
> 
> Also I investigated it now, but we don't have RCU support for rbtrees.
> So it would need some kind of locking for the reader, which is a show
> stopper.

Nah, we can trivially do that with a seqlock. Not read side locking
required in the normal case.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/