Josh Poimboeuf | ee9f8fc | 2017-07-24 18:36:57 -0500 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | ORC unwinder |
| 2 | ============ |
| 3 | |
| 4 | Overview |
| 5 | -------- |
| 6 | |
Josh Poimboeuf | 11af847 | 2017-10-13 15:02:00 -0500 | [diff] [blame] | 7 | The kernel CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC option enables the ORC unwinder, which is |
Josh Poimboeuf | ee9f8fc | 2017-07-24 18:36:57 -0500 | [diff] [blame] | 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 |