On May 27, 2021 6:08:33 PM GMT-03:00, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 01:41:13PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:57 PM Arnaldo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On May 27, 2021 4:14:17 PM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko ><andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:06 PM Arnaldo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On May 27, 2021 1:54:40 PM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko >> > ><andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:20 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo >> > >> ><acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Hi guys, >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Its important to have 1.22 out of the door ASAP, so >please >> > >> >clone >> > >> >> what is in tmp.master and report your results. >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >Hey Arnaldo, >> > >> > >> > >> >If we are going to make pahole 1.22 a new mandatory minimal >version >> > >of >> > >> >pahole, I think we should take a little bit of time and fix >another >> > >> >problematic issue and clean up Kbuild significantly. >> > >> > >> > >> >We discussed this before, it would be great to have an ability >to >> > >dump >> > >> >generated BTF into a separate file instead of modifying vmlinux >> > >image >> > >> >in place. I'd say let's try to push for [0] to land as a >temporary >> > >> >work around to buy us a bit of time to implement this feature. >Then, >> > >> >when pahole 1.22 is released and packaged into major distros, >we can >> > >> >follow up in kernel with Kbuild clean ups and making pahole >1.22 >> > >> >mandatory. >> > >> > >> > >> >What do you think? If anyone agrees, please consider chiming in >on >> > >the >> > >> >above thread ([0]). >> > >> >> > >> There's multiple fixes that affects lots of stakeholders, so I'm >more >> > >inclined to release 1.22 sooner rather than later. >> > >> >> > >> If anyone has cycles right now to work on that detached BTF >feature, >> > >releasing 1.23 as soon as that feature is complete and tested >shouldn't >> > >be a problem. >> > >> >> > >> Then 1.23 the mandatory minimal version. >> > >> >> > >> Wdyt? >> > > >> > >If we make 1.22 mandatory there will be no good reason to make >1.23 >> > >mandatory again. So I will have absolutely no inclination to work >on >> > >this, for example. So we are just wasting a chance to clean up the >> > >Kbuild story w.r.t. pahole. And we are talking about just a few >days >> > >at most, while we do have a reasonable work around on the kernel >side. >> > >> > So there were patches for stop using objcopy, which we thought >could uncover some can of worms, were there patches for the detached >BTF file? >> >> No, there weren't, if I remember correctly. What's the concern, >> though? That detached BTF file isn't even an ELF, so it's >> btf__get_raw_data() and write it to the file. Done. > >heya, >I probably overlooked this, but are there more details about that >detached BTF file feature somewhere? Look in the dwarves mailing list archives at lore, but it's just a new option to ask for the BTF data to be written to a file instead of to an ELF section, that will simplify the series of steps in the kernel building process. I'll cook a patch early tomorrow. - Arnaldo -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
