Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix perf LBR filtering

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I don't think you want to spend that many cycles in the NMI
> > handler for a dubious feature.  Ok in theory you could
> > add something with binary search, but that would be quite
> > a bit of effort and it would be probably challenging 
> > to do that all NMI safe.
> 
> If anyone using LBR sees that overhead it can be improved. You or others 
> who care can improve it.

Also, improving the performance of is_module_text() shouldn't be too hard: 
an RCU rbtree should be enough.

It's NMI-safe: when the rb-tree is in the middle of a rotation we'll 
simply not find the address and 'revert' to the worst case non-filtering 
your patch does all the time, but in the likely case it does find it and 
works as expected.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/