On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote: > > > On 31/07/2024 14:26, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:57:25AM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote: > >> On 30/07/2024 23:43, Matthew Maurer wrote: > >>> Without this, even with `--lang_exclude=rust` set, running on `vmlinux` > >>> with `CONFIG_RUST` enabled will lead to errors like: > >>> die__process_function: tag not supported 0x2f (template_type_parameter)! > >>> because the filtering doesn't happen until finalization, but unsupported > >>> tags are reported during loading. > >>> > >>> As an added bonus, this should speed up processing of large objects with > >>> filtered CUs, as their details will no longer be walked. > >>> > >> > >> One question on this; if we are always doing early filtering like this, > >> should the explicit cu__filter() call be removed from pahole_stealer()? > > > > When I saw the introduction of an extra callback to be used inside the > > dwarf_loader I thought that it would be used only for this specific > > language filtering feature, i.e. a defensive approach at implementing > > this to avoid unintended side effects of doing all filtering at that > > point, maybe some other feature somehow depends on the cu__filter() > > being called where it was so far. > > > > But then it is being used for all filtering, so it seems just a way to > > reduce the patch size... > > > > So I'd keep the cu->early_cu_filter() but would use it only for the > > language filtering feature, wdyt? > > So if I understand correctly, > > if (languages.exclude) > conf_load.early_cu_filter = cu__filter; > > ? Seems reasonable to me. Thanks! yeah, you got it. So this new early filtering is done for the feature we have at hand and if other uses of cu__filter() already in place need, we can transition to this new mechanism that reuses the cu__filter() function signature/semantics. - Arnaldo
