lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:40:15 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] add i386 idle notifier (take 3) On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 02:07:00AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > Andrian, > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 02:06:41AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > changelog: > > > - add a notifier mechanism to the low level idle loop. You can > > > register a callback function which gets invoked on entry and exit > > > from the low level idle loop. The low level idle loop is defined as > > > the polling loop, low-power call, or the mwait instruction. Interrupts > > > processed by the idle thread are not considered part of the low level > > > loop. The notifier can be used to measure precisely how much is spent > > > in useless execution (or low power mode). The perfmon subsystem uses it > > > to turn on/off monitoring. > > > > > > Why is this patch not submitted as part of the perfmon patch that also > > adds a user of this code? > > If you look at the perfmon-new-base patch, you'll see a base.diff patch which > includes this one. I am slowly getting rid of this requirement by pushing > those "infrastructure patches" to mainline so that the perfmon patch gets > smaller over time. Submitting smaller patches makes it easier for maintainers > to integrate. No, the preferred way is to start with getting both the infrastructure and the users into -mm. Adding infrastructure without users doesn't fit into the kernel development model. The unused x86-64 idle notifiers are now bloating the kernel since nearly one year. > > And why does it bloat the kernel with EXPORT_SYMBOL's although even your > > perfmon-new-base-061204 doesn't seem to add any modular user? > > I have tried to stay as close as possible from the x86-64 implementation > of this mechanism. The registration entry points are exported to modules, > just like they are for x86-64. Also note that the x86-64 idle notifier does > not have a user at this point, yet it is in the kernel. Perfmon will become > the first user of this mechanism. Where does the perfmon code use the EXPORT_SYMBOL's? And having added bloat on one architecture is not an excuse for adding bloat on other architectures. > -Stephane cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists