public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chung-Lin Tang <chunglin_tang@mentor.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: <cltang@codesourcery.com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] #17645, fix slow DSO sorting behavior in dynamic loader
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e869a2d2-3717-9491-1bd3-03805e0dffce@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wog15fyy.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>

On 2019/7/29 5:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Chung-Lin Tang:

>>> Can your test framework test both cases?  What's your position on the
>>> second effect?  I think it sometimes results in destructors running not
>>> in the opposite order of constructors, due to the new topological sort.
>>> (This also happens with the current implementation.)
>>
>> What I did in the ld.so code patch was add a second pass of sorting
>> that ignores runtime deps, prioritizing link dependencies; this
>> appears to also be what prior discussion pointed towards, see more
>> details in that 2nd email with the actual code patch.
> 
> I wonder if it makes sense to disentangle this (desirable) functional
> change from the rest (which sould be purely an optimization).

By "functional change" here, are you referring to the testing framework,
or the described ld.so destructor behavior I described above?

> Is it even necessary to re-sort on dlclose?  Is the original dependency
> order available somewhere?  Then we could make it explicit that the
> destructor order is the reverse of the constructor order (for the
> objects unloaded).  Or is there a corner case which causes an expected
> divergence?

Dynamic loaded objects could add more relocation dependencies, and thus augment
the dependency relations (by adding more constraints), so a final sort should
still be required.

Thanks,
Chung-Lin

  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-05 10:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-20 17:51 Chung-Lin Tang
2019-07-23 13:21 ` Florian Weimer
2019-07-25 18:46   ` Chung-Lin Tang
2019-07-29  9:48     ` Florian Weimer
2019-08-05 10:39       ` Chung-Lin Tang [this message]
2019-08-05 10:45         ` Florian Weimer
2019-08-10 11:49           ` Chung-Lin Tang
2019-09-17  9:55 ` Ping " Chung-Lin Tang
2019-10-08  6:22   ` Ping x2 " Chung-Lin Tang
2019-10-08 17:41     ` Adhemerval Zanella
2019-10-31 13:13     ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-11-14  9:58       ` Chung-Lin Tang
2019-11-25  9:19         ` Chung-Lin Tang
2019-11-25 19:08           ` Carlos O'Donell
2019-11-26  8:19             ` Chung-Lin Tang
2019-11-27 15:20               ` Carlos O'Donell

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=e869a2d2-3717-9491-1bd3-03805e0dffce@mentor.com \
    --to=chunglin_tang@mentor.com \
    --cc=cltang@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    /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).