RE: [RFC PATCH v3 7/7] x86/unwind/orc: remove run-time ORC unwind tables sort

[David Laight]

From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 15 November 2019 17:47
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 04:51:24PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Shile Zhang
> > > Sent: 15 November 2019 06:48
> > ...
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c | 8 +++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > index 332ae6530fa8..280da6fa9922 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/unwind_orc.c
> > > @@ -273,9 +273,11 @@ void __init unwind_init(void)
> > >  		return;
> > >  	}
> > >
> > > -	/* Sort the .orc_unwind and .orc_unwind_ip tables: */
> > > -	sort(__start_orc_unwind_ip, num_entries, sizeof(int), orc_sort_cmp,
> > > -	     orc_sort_swap);
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Note, orc_unwind and orc_unwind_ip tables has been sorted in
> > > +	 * vmlinux link phase by sorttable tool at build time.
> > > +	 * Its ready for binary search now.
> > > +	 */
> >
> > How fast is sort() if the table is sorted?
> > Relying on the kernel sources and build scripts always being in sync seems dangerous.
> > Probably better to leave the sort in for a release of two.
> 
> This patch comes after the build script changes, so they'd be in sync.
> What would the concern be?

Mostly that if, for any reason, the build script changes are missing nothing
will detect the error - but the results will be very confusing.
If the sort is fast for sorted inputs (some algorithms aren't) then leaving
it in won't take that long.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)