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

From: Andi Kleen
Date: Mon Sep 29 2014 - 16:30:30 EST

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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at