From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix DW_OP_call2 and DW_OP_call4 for max-cache-age 0
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=P+AvENDYfiPfYFdGkY5A4Dea_5hRUgSBGPh73@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100906094821.GA20484@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:59:16 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
>> Unless code that needs a CU reads it in as necessary, and the API into
>> the dwarf reader only ages the cache at well defined points that no
>> longer need CUs (e.g. when we're done psymtab->symtab expansion).
>> (right?)
>
> This means only one CU is guaranteed to be read in at one time. And when you
> hold that CU you must not call any GDB function as this function can (upon
> a change in the future) request its own CU and thus invalidate CU at the
> caller. I find it as a too fragile policy.
>
> Still I find it even ineffective. Regular aging means CUs get flushed even if
> only a few of them is now read-in.
>
>
>> > Therefore I find prepare_execute_command as the only safe place to flush any
>> > CU.
>>
>> OOC, If we did move cache aging to a higher level, is there a reason
>> it can't be done at cleanup time?
>> [For reference sake, it's actually done today for free_stack_comp_unit.]
>
> The aging currently affects all CUs read-in. There can be several nested
> calls each requesting its own CU and doing aging at the (inner) cleanup time.
> That means a cleanup in the inner call may age-out CU in the outer call still
> before the outer cleanup.
>
> Without any CU locking in place I still do not see a safe point other than at
> the top level idle time (that is prepare_execute_command).
How about we take a step back and enumerate the entry points into the
dwarf subsystem (at least those that need CUs). Then we can see
if/when a CU needs to survive calls across the dwarf API. If there's
a correctness issue here, perhaps we want to separate it from the
internal optimization detail of CU flushing. E.g. we may find that
only flushing CUs in prepare_execute_command has issues as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-06 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-23 18:50 Jan Kratochvil
2010-08-23 19:30 ` Doug Evans
2010-09-02 17:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-09-02 19:33 ` Doug Evans
2011-07-13 15:21 ` [patch] Fix DW_OP_call2 and DW_OP_call4 for max-cache-age 0 #2 Jan Kratochvil
2011-07-19 20:55 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-09-03 15:42 ` [patch] Fix DW_OP_call2 and DW_OP_call4 for max-cache-age 0 Tom Tromey
2010-09-03 16:14 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-09-03 18:06 ` Doug Evans
2010-09-06 11:29 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-09-06 22:29 ` Doug Evans [this message]
2010-09-08 12:26 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='AANLkTi=P+AvENDYfiPfYFdGkY5A4Dea_5hRUgSBGPh73@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dje@google.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).