[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081229234447.41c3c1b1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:44:47 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] kmemleak: Add the base support
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:38:07 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Stop the automatic memory scanning thread. This function must be called
> > > + * with the kmemleak_mutex held.
> > > + */
> > > +void stop_scan_thread(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (scan_thread) {
> > > + kthread_stop(scan_thread);
> > > + scan_thread = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > so... why do we need a kernel thread?
> >
> > We could have (for the sake of argument) a sys_kmemleak_scan() which
> > does a single scan then returns. Or something like that. That way,
> > userspace directly gets to set the scanning frequency, thread priority,
> > etc.
>
> thread priority of a kernel thread can be set anyway. Kernel threads tend
> to be better for such simple things because we can control all aspects,
> start them automatically so that test setups catch it (without needing any
> userspace component), etc.
>
yeah yeah, userspace is too hard for kernel programmers, so we put our
applications, English-only pretty-printers etc into the kernel. It's a
broken record.
--
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