From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 V2] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:44:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <525C8F92.8080307@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5249B9F9.4030901@redhat.com>
On 10/01/2013 01:50 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I've been background-thinking about taking a step back and understand
> why each use case that is sped up with this patch is slow to begin with.
> That is, the series jumps to a solution, but we haven't done our due diligence
> with analyzing the problem thoroughly, IMO. E.g., for the disassembly use
Due diligence was done, but in a different way :). Option
"trust-readonly-sections" was mentioned to improve the performance of
remote debugging and "turning it on in default" was discussed when this
option was added. We didn't turn it on in default because of bad code
on non-memory protection systems. V1 follows this idea to let GDB to
know which targets are memory protection systems.
> case, presented in the v1 series, I'd think that the problem is that GDB is
> fetching data off the target instruction by instruction, instead of requesting
> a block of memory and working with that. More aggressive over fetching
> could be a better/safer approach.
I agree.
>
> We have similar infrastructure already, in dcache.c -- we use
> it for stack memory nowadays, and if the memory region is marked as
> cacheable. We used to support caching more than just stack, but
> that was never enabled by default because it may not be safe to
> read memory outside of the range the caller is specifying, because of
> things like memory mapped registers, etc. (In the case of stack, we assume
> stack is allocated in page chunks, so that dcache never steps on memory is
> should not). But in cases like disassembly, we're being driven by debug
> info or user input. As GDB knows upfront the whole range of memory it'll
> be fetching, accessing a bigger chunk upfront, as long as it doesn't
> step out of the range we read piecemeal anyway, should have no effect
> on correctness.
We have to improve dcache.c at first. Nowadays, dcache requests one
cache line from the target in one time, regardless the actual size of
memory requested.
--
Yao (é½å°§)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-15 0:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-06 2:03 [PATCH 0/3] " Yao Qi
2013-09-06 2:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] " Yao Qi
2013-09-06 6:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 9:07 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-06 9:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 2:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] set trust-readonly-sections off in test cases Yao Qi
2013-09-06 5:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 17:23 ` Pedro Alves
2013-09-06 2:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] Linux has memory protection Yao Qi
2013-09-06 5:57 ` [PATCH 0/3] Trust readonly sections if target " Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 8:24 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-06 8:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 13:03 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-09-06 13:27 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-06 13:32 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 14:17 ` Pierre Muller
[not found] ` <"000d01ceab0b$d53ae600$7fb0b200$@muller"@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
2013-09-06 14:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 14:52 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-09-06 15:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 18:10 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-09-06 18:36 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-06 13:00 ` Joel Brobecker
2013-09-08 12:04 ` [PATCH 0/7 V2] " Yao Qi
2013-09-08 12:04 ` [PATCH 1/7] Emit a warning when writing to a readonly section and trust_readonly is true Yao Qi
2013-09-08 15:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 6/7] Linux has memory protection Yao Qi
2013-09-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 5/7] DOC and NEWS Yao Qi
2013-09-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 2/7] set trust-readonly-sections off in test cases Yao Qi
2013-09-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 7/7] Windows has memory protection Yao Qi
2013-09-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 4/7] Trust readonly sections if target " Yao Qi
2013-09-08 15:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-09 7:49 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-09 16:25 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 3/7] New function windows_init_abi Yao Qi
2013-09-09 19:16 ` [PATCH 0/7 V2] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection Mark Kettenis
2013-09-10 4:06 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-12 8:30 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-12 9:49 ` Mark Kettenis
2013-09-13 8:17 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-30 17:50 ` Pedro Alves
2013-09-30 18:08 ` Pedro Alves
2013-10-07 22:29 ` Stan Shebs
2013-10-08 12:18 ` Pedro Alves
2013-10-08 12:47 ` Abid, Hafiz
2013-10-08 13:36 ` tmirza
2013-10-09 2:24 ` Doug Evans
2013-10-23 10:16 ` Yao Qi
2013-10-15 0:44 ` Yao Qi [this message]
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 0/7 V3] " Yao Qi
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 3/7] New function windows_init_abi Yao Qi
2013-09-30 18:23 ` Pedro Alves
2013-10-01 6:47 ` Yao Qi
2013-10-01 9:35 ` Pedro Alves
2013-10-01 13:23 ` Yao Qi
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 5/7] DOC and NEWS Yao Qi
2013-09-20 8:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 2/7] set trust-readonly-sections off in test cases Yao Qi
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 6/7] Linux has memory protection Yao Qi
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 4/7] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection and in remote debugging Yao Qi
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 7/7] Windows has memory protection Yao Qi
2013-09-20 2:47 ` [PATCH 1/7] Emit a query when writing to a readonly section and trust_readonly is true Yao Qi
2013-09-29 13:51 ` [PATCH 0/7 V3] Trust readonly sections if target has memory protection Yao Qi
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=525C8F92.8080307@codesourcery.com \
--to=yao@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=palves@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