[Dwarf-Discuss] debug_aranges use and overhead

Samy Al Bahra sbahra at repnop.org
Thu Feb 24 14:24:02 PST 2022


Hi David

I implemented some optimizations in the form of a specialized parser for
fast AT_ranges scanning and performance is now comparable to lazy
evaluation through .debug_aranges (only marginally worse assuming buffer
cache warmed up). We've since shipped with these optimizations. I have to
do some work in the same code base in March and will run a comparison then
/ share numbers here including after dropping buffers. If you would benefit
from having them sooner, let me know and I'll make it happen.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 3:44 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Samy - curious if you ever happened to end up getting further details
> here.
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:05 PM Samy Al Bahra <sbahra at repnop.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the detailed response David.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:52 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not suggesting scanning all of .debug_info - only the CU DIE for
>>> DW_AT_ranges or high/low_pc, then skip to the next CU DIE (via the
>>> unit header's next unit offset).
>>>
>>
>>> It sounded like CU ranges couldn't be used to build such an index at
>>> all/that your code used quite a different strategy in the absence of
>>> aranges? (rather than building the index from the CU ranges - somewhat
>>> slower I'm sure, but I wouldn't've thought (& am trying to understand
>>> if it is/why) so fundamentally slower that it wouldn't be the next
>>> fallback rather than skipping the index entirely or employing some
>>> more fundamentally different approach)
>>
>>
>> This is still significantly less dense than aranges, involves more disk
>> I/O and memory pressure. Let me see what optimizations I can implement here
>> and get back to you with the results / what I came up with. This would be a
>> better basis for apples to apples comparison.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you mean building ranges from all the DIEs deep inside a CU - yeah,
>>> that's going to be fundamentally slower in a bunch of ways that maybe
>>> I could see that would necessitate a totally different approach/that
>>> the index wouldn't make sense anymore (though I'd still like to
>>> understand it) - but I'm especially curious about the case where the
>>> CU DIE itself does have comprehensive address range information.
>>>
>>
>> Will report back on this.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (+ complexities Greg mentions later in the thread). In cases where
>>> we lack this, we use our own persistent cache which introduces unnecessary
>>> complexity. Now I am considering going as far as adding a multi-threaded
>>> indexer for cases where a persistent cache / build system modifications
>>> aren't an option (work to begin in the next week or two).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> .debug_aranges would provide a lot of value to our users.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:48 PM David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss <
>>> dwarf-discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 5:48 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hopefully not to side-track things too much... maybe wants its own
>>> >>>>> thread, if there's more to debate here.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yeah, how about we spin it off into another thread (done here)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> For the case you suggested where it would be useful to keep the
>>> range
>>> >>>>> >> list for the CU in the .o file, I think .debug_aranges is what
>>> you're
>>> >>>>> >> looking for.
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > aranges has been off by default in LLVM for a while - it adds a
>>> lot of
>>> >>>>> > overhead (doesn't have all the nice rnglist encodings for
>>> instance -
>>> >>>>> > nor can it use debug_addr, and if it did it'd still be duplicate
>>> with
>>> >>>>> > the CU ranges wherever they were).
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Did you want to file an issue to improve how .debug_aranges works?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I don't currently understand the value it provides, and I at least
>>> don't have a use case for it, so I'm not sure I'd be the best person to
>>> advocate/drive that work.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Complaining that it duplicates CU ranges is missing the point,
>>> though;
>>> >>>>> it's an index, like .debug_names, of course it duplicates other
>>> info.
>>> >>>>> If you want to suggest an improved index, like we did with
>>> .debug_names,
>>> >>>>> that would be great too.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> .debug_names is quite different though - it collects information
>>> from across the DIE tree - information that is expensive to otherwise
>>> gather (walking the whole DIE tree).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> .debug_aranges is not like that for most producers (producers that
>>> do include the address ranges on the CU DIE) - the data is readily
>>> available immediately on the CU. That does involve reading some of
>>> .debug_abbrev, and interpreting a handful of attributes - but at least for
>>> the use cases I'm aware of, that overhead isn't worth the size increase.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Do you have numbers on the benefits of .debug_aranges compared to
>>> parsing the ranges from CU DIEs?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> (one possible issue: the CU doesn't /have/ to contain
>>> low/high/ranges if its children DIEs contain addresses - having that as a
>>> guarantee, or some preferred way of encoding zero length (high/low of 0
>>> would be acceptable, I guess) would be nice & make it cheap to skip over
>>> CUs that don't have any address ranges)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Roughly, a modern debug_aranges to me would look something like:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> <length>
>>> >>>> <version>
>>> >>>> <CU sec_offset>
>>> >>>> <addr_base>
>>> >>>> <rnglist sec_offset>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> So it could fully re-use the rnglist encoding. If this was going to
>>> be as compact as possible, it'd need to be configurable which encodings it
>>> uses - ranges V high/low, addrx V addr - at which point it'd probably look
>>> like a small DIE with an inline abbrev (similar to the way DWARFv5 encodes
>>> the file and directory entries now, and how debug_names is self-describing)
>>> - at which point it looks to me a lot like parsing the CU DIEs.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
>>> >>>> Dwarf-Discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org
>>> >>>> http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
>>
>

-- 
Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/attachments/20220224/5cc454c8/attachment.htm>


More information about the Dwarf-Discuss mailing list