Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: unwind extension

From: Phil Carmody
Date: Thu Jun 10 2010 - 10:10:42 EST

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.

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