We have to deal with reality if we want to measure and improve software performance today. The current reality is that frame pointers are the best choice. Brendan's article outlines a couple of possible future scenarios where we turn frame pointers off again, but they require work that is not done yet (in one case, advances in CPUs).
I propose that a frame pointer daemon be introduced too, for managing the frame pointer signals. We shall modify _start() to open up an io_uring connection to SystemD so that a program may share its .eh_frame data. That way the kernel can still unwind its stack in case apt upgrade changes the elf inode.
Neither of you has identified anything technically wrong with unwinding via signal and neither of you has proposed a mechanism through which we might support semantically informative unwinding through paged-out code or interpreted languages.
I don't need to. Fedora and Ubuntu have already changed their policies to restore frame pointers. As far as I can tell, your proposal is no longer on the table. If you aren't willing to accept the decision, then you should at least understand that the onus is on you now to justify why things need to change.
We have to deal with reality if we want to measure and improve software performance today. The current reality is that frame pointers are the best choice. Brendan's article outlines a couple of possible future scenarios where we turn frame pointers off again, but they require work that is not done yet (in one case, advances in CPUs).
Your argument would be more compelling without the swipe in the final sentence.
I propose that a frame pointer daemon be introduced too, for managing the frame pointer signals. We shall modify _start() to open up an io_uring connection to SystemD so that a program may share its .eh_frame data. That way the kernel can still unwind its stack in case apt upgrade changes the elf inode.
Neither of you has identified anything technically wrong with unwinding via signal and neither of you has proposed a mechanism through which we might support semantically informative unwinding through paged-out code or interpreted languages.
Sarcasm is not a technical argument.
I don't need to. Fedora and Ubuntu have already changed their policies to restore frame pointers. As far as I can tell, your proposal is no longer on the table. If you aren't willing to accept the decision, then you should at least understand that the onus is on you now to justify why things need to change.
2 replies →