On 07/25/2016 07:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
_Unwind_Find_FDE calls _Unwind_Find_registered_FDE and it takes lock even
when there is no registered objects. As far as I see only statically
linked applications call __register_frame_info* functions, so for
dynamically linked executables taking the lock to check unseen_objects
and seen_objects is a pessimization. Since the function is called on
each thrown exception this is a lot of unneeded locking. This patch
checks unseen_objects and seen_objects outside of the lock and returns
earlier if both are NULL.
diff --git a/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c b/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c
index 5b16a1f..41de746 100644
--- a/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c
+++ b/libgcc/unwind-dw2-fde.c
@@ -1001,6 +1001,13 @@ _Unwind_Find_FDE (void *pc, struct dwarf_eh_bases *bases)
struct object *ob;
const fde *f = NULL;
+ /* __atomic_write is not used to modify unseen_objects and seen_objects
+ since they are modified in locked sections only and unlock provides
+ release semantics. */
+ if (!__atomic_load_n(&unseen_objects, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE)
+ && !__atomic_load_n(&seen_objects, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE))
+ return NULL;
As as Andrew noted, this might be bad on targets that don't have
atomics. For those we could easily end up inside a libfunc which would
be unfortunate. Certain mips/arm variants come to mind here.
For targets that don't have atomics or any kind of synchronization
libfunc, we'll emit nop-asm-barriers to at least stop the optimizers
from munging things too badly.
It's been a couple years since I've really thought about these kinds of
synchronization issues -- is it really safe in a weakly ordered
processor to rely on the mutex lock/unlock of the "object_mutex" to
order the loads/stores of "unseen_objects" and "seen_objects"?
Jeff
