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: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:28:21 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> Cc: zhaolei@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, tzanussi@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_tracepoint: Add worklet tracepoints for worklet lifecycle tracing On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:37:03 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote: > I discovered it with this tracer. Then it brought me to > write this patch: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/31/184 > > ... > > Still with these same observations, I wrote this another one: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/26/363 OK, it's great that you're working to improve the workqueue code. But does this justify permanently adding debug code to the core workqueue code? In fact, because you've discovered these problem, the reasons for adding the debug code have lessened! What we need are curious developers looking into how well subsystems are performing and how well callers are using them. Adding fairly large amounts of permanent debug code into the core subsystems is a peculiar way of encouraging such activity. If a developer is motivated to improve (say) workqueues then they will write a bit of ad-hoc code, or poke at it with systemtap or will maintain a private ftrace patch - that's all pretty simple stuff for such people. So what is the remaining case for adding these patches? What I see is a) that their presence will entice people to run them and maybe find some problems and b) the workqueue-maintainer's task is lessened a bit by not having to forward-port his debugging patch. I dunno, it all seems a bit thin to me. Especially when you multiply it all by nr_core_subsystems? -- 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