From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
To: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Multi-threaded dwarf parsing
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d1rl7us0.fsf@tromey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4dc7b1f07fe11da024684ec2de47a7e@simark.ca> (Simon Marchi's message of "Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:43:03 -0500")
Simon> Just to make sure I understand correctly: instead of blocking on
Simon> the psymtabs creation at startup (in elf_symfile_read), you
Simon> offload that to worker threads and carry on. If you happen to
Simon> need the information and it's not ready yet, then the main code
Simon> will have to block until the corresponding task is complete
Simon> (dwarf2_require_psymtabs).
That's correct.
Simon> However, in each worker thread, each objfile is still processed
Simon> sequentially. So if you are waiting for libxul.so's debug info
Simon> to be ready (such as in #1), it won't be ready any faster. Is
Simon> that right?
Yes, each task constructs the psymtabs for an entire objfile.
Simon> My view of the parallelism was that when reading an objfile's
Simon> debug info, the main thread would offload chunks of work (a chunk
Simon> == a CU) to the worker threads, but wait for all of them to be
Simon> done before continuing. So it would still be blocking on the
Simon> psymtab creation, but it would block for a shorter time (divided
Simon> by the number of threads/cores, in an ideal world). It's just
Simon> replacing a serial algorithm by a parallel one, but it would be
Simon> mostly transparent to the rest of gdb.
Yeah. This sounds doable in the abstract; though of course details
matter. The DWARF reader has a lot of per-objfile state that would have
to be split up (ideally) or locked. And there is stuff like buildsym.h,
which is full of globals for no good reason.
Simon> I hadn't thought of reading the info in the background, but I
Simon> like the fact that it can get the user to a prompt faster. And I
Simon> think these two forms of parallelism are not mutually exclusive,
Simon> we could very well read CUs in parallel, in the background.
I agree.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-24 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-24 2:45 Simon Marchi
2016-02-24 11:06 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-24 15:30 ` Tom Tromey
2016-02-24 16:43 ` Simon Marchi
2016-02-24 19:50 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2016-02-24 20:25 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-02-24 20:37 ` Simon Marchi
2016-02-24 21:28 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-02-24 21:10 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-24 21:22 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-02-25 3:31 ` 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=87d1rl7us0.fsf@tromey.com \
--to=tom@tromey.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
/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