|
| 1 | +ORC unwinder |
| 2 | +============ |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | +Overview |
| 5 | +-------- |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +The kernel CONFIG_ORC_UNWINDER option enables the ORC unwinder, which is |
| 8 | +similar in concept to a DWARF unwinder. The difference is that the |
| 9 | +format of the ORC data is much simpler than DWARF, which in turn allows |
| 10 | +the ORC unwinder to be much simpler and faster. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +The ORC data consists of unwind tables which are generated by objtool. |
| 13 | +They contain out-of-band data which is used by the in-kernel ORC |
| 14 | +unwinder. Objtool generates the ORC data by first doing compile-time |
| 15 | +stack metadata validation (CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION). After analyzing |
| 16 | +all the code paths of a .o file, it determines information about the |
| 17 | +stack state at each instruction address in the file and outputs that |
| 18 | +information to the .orc_unwind and .orc_unwind_ip sections. |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +The per-object ORC sections are combined at link time and are sorted and |
| 21 | +post-processed at boot time. The unwinder uses the resulting data to |
| 22 | +correlate instruction addresses with their stack states at run time. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +ORC vs frame pointers |
| 26 | +--------------------- |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +With frame pointers enabled, GCC adds instrumentation code to every |
| 29 | +function in the kernel. The kernel's .text size increases by about |
| 30 | +3.2%, resulting in a broad kernel-wide slowdown. Measurements by Mel |
| 31 | +Gorman [1] have shown a slowdown of 5-10% for some workloads. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +In contrast, the ORC unwinder has no effect on text size or runtime |
| 34 | +performance, because the debuginfo is out of band. So if you disable |
| 35 | +frame pointers and enable the ORC unwinder, you get a nice performance |
| 36 | +improvement across the board, and still have reliable stack traces. |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +Ingo Molnar says: |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | + "Note that it's not just a performance improvement, but also an |
| 41 | + instruction cache locality improvement: 3.2% .text savings almost |
| 42 | + directly transform into a similarly sized reduction in cache |
| 43 | + footprint. That can transform to even higher speedups for workloads |
| 44 | + whose cache locality is borderline." |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +Another benefit of ORC compared to frame pointers is that it can |
| 47 | +reliably unwind across interrupts and exceptions. Frame pointer based |
| 48 | +unwinds can sometimes skip the caller of the interrupted function, if it |
| 49 | +was a leaf function or if the interrupt hit before the frame pointer was |
| 50 | +saved. |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +The main disadvantage of the ORC unwinder compared to frame pointers is |
| 53 | +that it needs more memory to store the ORC unwind tables: roughly 2-4MB |
| 54 | +depending on the kernel config. |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +ORC vs DWARF |
| 58 | +------------ |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +ORC debuginfo's advantage over DWARF itself is that it's much simpler. |
| 61 | +It gets rid of the complex DWARF CFI state machine and also gets rid of |
| 62 | +the tracking of unnecessary registers. This allows the unwinder to be |
| 63 | +much simpler, meaning fewer bugs, which is especially important for |
| 64 | +mission critical oops code. |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +The simpler debuginfo format also enables the unwinder to be much faster |
| 67 | +than DWARF, which is important for perf and lockdep. In a basic |
| 68 | +performance test by Jiri Slaby [2], the ORC unwinder was about 20x |
| 69 | +faster than an out-of-tree DWARF unwinder. (Note: That measurement was |
| 70 | +taken before some performance tweaks were added, which doubled |
| 71 | +performance, so the speedup over DWARF may be closer to 40x.) |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +The ORC data format does have a few downsides compared to DWARF. ORC |
| 74 | +unwind tables take up ~50% more RAM (+1.3MB on an x86 defconfig kernel) |
| 75 | +than DWARF-based eh_frame tables. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +Another potential downside is that, as GCC evolves, it's conceivable |
| 78 | +that the ORC data may end up being *too* simple to describe the state of |
| 79 | +the stack for certain optimizations. But IMO this is unlikely because |
| 80 | +GCC saves the frame pointer for any unusual stack adjustments it does, |
| 81 | +so I suspect we'll really only ever need to keep track of the stack |
| 82 | +pointer and the frame pointer between call frames. But even if we do |
| 83 | +end up having to track all the registers DWARF tracks, at least we will |
| 84 | +still be able to control the format, e.g. no complex state machines. |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +ORC unwind table generation |
| 88 | +--------------------------- |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +The ORC data is generated by objtool. With the existing compile-time |
| 91 | +stack metadata validation feature, objtool already follows all code |
| 92 | +paths, and so it already has all the information it needs to be able to |
| 93 | +generate ORC data from scratch. So it's an easy step to go from stack |
| 94 | +validation to ORC data generation. |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +It should be possible to instead generate the ORC data with a simple |
| 97 | +tool which converts DWARF to ORC data. However, such a solution would |
| 98 | +be incomplete due to the kernel's extensive use of asm, inline asm, and |
| 99 | +special sections like exception tables. |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +That could be rectified by manually annotating those special code paths |
| 102 | +using GNU assembler .cfi annotations in .S files, and homegrown |
| 103 | +annotations for inline asm in .c files. But asm annotations were tried |
| 104 | +in the past and were found to be unmaintainable. They were often |
| 105 | +incorrect/incomplete and made the code harder to read and keep updated. |
| 106 | +And based on looking at glibc code, annotating inline asm in .c files |
| 107 | +might be even worse. |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +Objtool still needs a few annotations, but only in code which does |
| 110 | +unusual things to the stack like entry code. And even then, far fewer |
| 111 | +annotations are needed than what DWARF would need, so they're much more |
| 112 | +maintainable than DWARF CFI annotations. |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +So the advantages of using objtool to generate ORC data are that it |
| 115 | +gives more accurate debuginfo, with very few annotations. It also |
| 116 | +insulates the kernel from toolchain bugs which can be very painful to |
| 117 | +deal with in the kernel since we often have to workaround issues in |
| 118 | +older versions of the toolchain for years. |
| 119 | + |
| 120 | +The downside is that the unwinder now becomes dependent on objtool's |
| 121 | +ability to reverse engineer GCC code flow. If GCC optimizations become |
| 122 | +too complicated for objtool to follow, the ORC data generation might |
| 123 | +stop working or become incomplete. (It's worth noting that livepatch |
| 124 | +already has such a dependency on objtool's ability to follow GCC code |
| 125 | +flow.) |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +If newer versions of GCC come up with some optimizations which break |
| 128 | +objtool, we may need to revisit the current implementation. Some |
| 129 | +possible solutions would be asking GCC to make the optimizations more |
| 130 | +palatable, or having objtool use DWARF as an additional input, or |
| 131 | +creating a GCC plugin to assist objtool with its analysis. But for now, |
| 132 | +objtool follows GCC code quite well. |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | + |
| 135 | +Unwinder implementation details |
| 136 | +------------------------------- |
| 137 | + |
| 138 | +Objtool generates the ORC data by integrating with the compile-time |
| 139 | +stack metadata validation feature, which is described in detail in |
| 140 | +tools/objtool/Documentation/stack-validation.txt. After analyzing all |
| 141 | +the code paths of a .o file, it creates an array of orc_entry structs, |
| 142 | +and a parallel array of instruction addresses associated with those |
| 143 | +structs, and writes them to the .orc_unwind and .orc_unwind_ip sections |
| 144 | +respectively. |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +The ORC data is split into the two arrays for performance reasons, to |
| 147 | +make the searchable part of the data (.orc_unwind_ip) more compact. The |
| 148 | +arrays are sorted in parallel at boot time. |
| 149 | + |
| 150 | +Performance is further improved by the use of a fast lookup table which |
| 151 | +is created at runtime. The fast lookup table associates a given address |
| 152 | +with a range of indices for the .orc_unwind table, so that only a small |
| 153 | +subset of the table needs to be searched. |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | + |
| 156 | +Etymology |
| 157 | +--------- |
| 158 | + |
| 159 | +Orcs, fearsome creatures of medieval folklore, are the Dwarves' natural |
| 160 | +enemies. Similarly, the ORC unwinder was created in opposition to the |
| 161 | +complexity and slowness of DWARF. |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +"Although Orcs rarely consider multiple solutions to a problem, they do |
| 164 | +excel at getting things done because they are creatures of action, not |
| 165 | +thought." [3] Similarly, unlike the esoteric DWARF unwinder, the |
| 166 | +veracious ORC unwinder wastes no time or siloconic effort decoding |
| 167 | +variable-length zero-extended unsigned-integer byte-coded |
| 168 | +state-machine-based debug information entries. |
| 169 | + |
| 170 | +Similar to how Orcs frequently unravel the well-intentioned plans of |
| 171 | +their adversaries, the ORC unwinder frequently unravels stacks with |
| 172 | +brutal, unyielding efficiency. |
| 173 | + |
| 174 | +ORC stands for Oops Rewind Capability. |
| 175 | + |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170602104048.jkkzssljsompjdwy@suse.de |
| 178 | +[2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/d2ca5435-6386-29b8-db87-7f227c2b713a@suse.cz |
| 179 | +[3] http://dustin.wikidot.com/half-orcs-and-orcs |
0 commit comments