linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_tracepoint: Add worklet tracepoints for worklet lifecycle tracing

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: <20090428205154.GE13893@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:51:54 -0400
From:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	zhaolei@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, fweisbec@...il.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

Hi, Andrew -

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:48:27AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [...]
> > To be fair, if you ask for someone to specify and quantify the
> > "benefits" side of this, shouldn't someone specify and quantify the
> > "cost" side of this too?
> [...]
> >  That way we would have something to compare.
> 
> Well, there are two aspects to this.  There's the immediate up-front
> cost - a little added complexity, more code, etc.

Yes, a little.


> But there's also the where-the-hell-is-this-all-going question.  Are we
> going to end up with hundreds or thousands of tracepoints sprinkled all
> over core kernel?  If so, what use are they?  What userspace tools will
> be used to pull them into something useful?  Who will be developing
> those tools and are they involved in the development of the
> tracepoints?  

(Well, that's back to the "benefits" side, isn't it?)


> Will this proliferation of static tracepoints actively kill off the
> development and maturation of dynamic tracepoints?  If so, is that
> good?

I hope not, but I believe the consensus has been that both dynamic and
static instrumentation are necessary & useful.


> From where I sit it looks like a mad scramble to sprinkle fairly
> random tracepoints all over the place under the assumption that
> this-may-be-useful-to-someone-one-day.  But of course, that means
> that they many never be useful to anyone ever. [...]

You may not be giving enough credit to the subsystem developers.  If
they opine that those tracepoints may accomplish (or have already
accomplished) something forseeably useful, at a reasonably "little"
cost, should it not require a large burden of proof to overcome their
judgement?


- FChE
--
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/