Somebody is probably setting an internal breakpoint for some purpose w/o scoping it to the shared library it's to be found in. Either that or somebody has broken lazy loading altogether. But that's not intended behavior.
Jim > On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:02 AM, Scott Smith <scott.sm...@purestorage.com> wrote: > > So as it turns out, at least on my platform (Ubuntu 14.04), the symbols are > loaded regardless. I changed my test so: > 1. main() just returns right away > 2. cmdline is: lldb -b -o run /path/to/my/binary > > and it takes the same amount of time as setting a breakpoint. > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > > We started out with the philosophy that lldb wouldn't touch any more > information in a shared library than we actually needed. So when a library > gets loaded we might need to read in and resolve its section list, but we > won't read in any symbols if we don't need to look at them. The idea was > that if you did "load a binary, and run it" until the binary stops for some > reason, we haven't done any unnecessary work. Similarly, if all the > breakpoints the user sets are scoped to a shared library then there's no need > for us to read any symbols for any other shared libraries. I think that is a > good goal, it allows the debugger to be used in special purpose analysis > tools w/o forcing it to pay costs that a more general purpose debug session > might require. > > I think it would be hard to convert all the usages of modules to from "do > something with a shared library" mode to "tell me you are interested in a > shared library and give me a callback" so that the module reading could be > parallelized on demand. But at the very least we need to allow a mode where > symbol reading is done lazily. > > The other concern is that lldb keeps the modules it reads in a global cache, > shared by all debuggers & targets. It is very possible that you could have > two targets or two debuggers each with one target that are reading in shared > libraries simultaneously, and adding them to the global cache. In some of > the uses that lldb has under Xcode this is actually very common. So the task > pool will have to be built up as things are added to the global shared module > cache, not at the level of individual targets noticing the read-in of a > shared library. > > Jim > > > > > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Scott Smith via lldb-dev > > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > After a dealing with a bunch of microoptimizations, I'm back to > > parallelizing loading of shared modules. My naive approach was to just > > create a new thread per shared library. I have a feeling some users may > > not like that; I think I read an email from someone who has thousands of > > shared libraries. That's a lot of threads :-) > > > > The problem is loading a shared library can cause downstream > > parallelization through TaskPool. I can't then also have the loading of a > > shared library itself go through TaskPool, as that could cause a deadlock - > > if all the worker threads are waiting on work that TaskPool needs to run on > > a worker thread.... then nothing will happen. > > > > Three possible solutions: > > > > 1. Remove the notion of a single global TaskPool, but instead have a static > > pool at each callsite that wants it. That way multiple paths into the same > > code would share the same pool, but different places in the code would have > > their own pool. > > > > 2. Change the wait code for TaskRunner to note whether it is already on a > > TaskPool thread, and if so, spawn another one. However, I don't think that > > fully solves the issue of having too many threads loading shared libraries, > > as there is no guarantee the new worker would work on the "deepest" work. > > I suppose each task would be annotated with depth, and the work could be > > sorted in TaskPool though... > > > > 3. Leave a separate thread per shared library. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
