| 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: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:28:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com> To: Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml@...il.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: Trace event testing time - 3s to 41s On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 11:15 -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote: > Somewhere between -rc9 and yesterday's git, my desktop went from using > 3s worth of trace event testing time to 41s ! > > It looks like we not only added a whole bunch of tracing points but > also are doing the tests twice post -rc9 - the addition being testing > with function tracer. > > grep "Testing event" dmesg.31rc9 |wc -l > 100 > > grep "Testing event" dmesg.31git |wc -l > 1172 This was due to the fact that we test every syscall now. > > While one could get away with "don't enable that config option then" > response, for testing kernels daily this sounds like it is going to be > very annoying as it adds a considerable boot lag. > > So I was thinking could we move this testing to a kthread with idle > priority or something - may be disabling tracing until those tests are > finished, if that sort of thing is necessary? > Or does it need to happen synchronous to booting? I don't have time at the moment, but I would not mind moving the syscall testing to a thread. Heck, that way we can actually test syscalls too ;-) -- Steve -- 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