linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add i386 idle notifier (take 3)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070103230708.GM20714@stusta.de>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:07:08 +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 Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:20:15AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:40:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> I am hearing conflicting opinions on this one.
> 
> Perfmon is a fairly big patch. It is hard to take it as one. I have tried to
> split it up in smaller, more manageable pieces as requested by top-level
> maintainers. This process implies that I supply small patches which may not
> necessarily have users just yet.

There should be a big patchset consisting of manageable pieces, if 
possible all of it in -mm.

> > 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?
> > > 
> > Where does the perfmon code use the EXPORT_SYMBOL's?
> 
> The perfmon patch includes several kernel modules which make use of
> the exported entry points. The following symbols are exported:
> 
> pfm_pmu_register/pfm_pmu_unregister:
> 	* PMU description module registration.
> 	* Used to describe PMU model.
> 	* Used by perfmon_p4.c, perfmon_core.c, perfmon_mckinley.c, and others
> 
> pfm_fmt_register/pfm_fmt_unregister:
> 	* Sampling format module registration
> 	* Used by perfmon_dfl_smpl.c, perfmon_pebs_smpl.c
> 
> pfm_interrupt_handler:
> 	* PMU interrupt handler
> 	* Used by MIPS-specific perfmon code
> 
> pfm_pmu_conf/pfm_controls:
> 	* global state/control variable
> 
> All exported symbols are currently used. Why are you saying this adds bloat?

Which module uses idle_notifier_register/idle_notifier_unregister?

> -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/