[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: unwind extension
On 03/06/10 14:17 +0200, Carmody Phil.2 (EXT-Ixonos/Helsinki) wrote:
> The first two patches are simply preparation for the third, making it
> effectively trivial, even though it's the only one with a concrete
> change in behaviour.
> The origins of this patchset are the discovery that unwind and kmemleak
> don't always cooperate well with each other - any allocation within
> an exit or devexit function causes kmemleak to look up symbols that
> aren't in any unwind table. This of course means that all WARN_ONs and
> BUGs will suffer the same fate.
> It could certainly be said that with a typical system the linked list
> has grown too large to be practical as a container, and some improvements
> could be made in that direction in the future.


Have you had a chance to look at these yet? The linked-list efficiency
issue I mention in the final paragraph above is a no-brainer; I have a
1-line tweak that improves the real-world efficiency so much that on
average there are only 2 linked list operations rather than (on a 50+
module system) 70. However, that patch is orthogonal to the above set,
so I'll not mix the two.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-10 16:13    [W:0.078 / U:5.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site