[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B15414A.9040405@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:16:10 -0800
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@...ibm.com>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/2] Futex fault injection
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 11:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This patch set adds fault injection for futex subsystem. It adds
>>>> faults at places where reading/writing from user space can return
>>>> EFAULT. This will be useful in testing any significant change to futex
>>>> subsystem.
>>> Instead of this unacceptably ugly and special-purpose debugfs
>>> interface, please extend perf events to allow event injection. Some
>>> other places in the kernel (which deal with rare events) want/need
>>> this capability too.
>> Thing is, he's using the 'normal' fault injection code to do this, I
>> see no objection to doing that.
>
> Yes - but its impact to the futex code is butt-ugly. That some facility
> is in the kernel does not mean it gets a free pass to be applied
> everywhere and anywhere.
I don't think the "butt-ugly" argument is enough to reject the patch.
It's a fairly subjective metric and I don't think the proposed solution
results in "pretty" code either. In fact the super long function names
and multi-line conditionals are arguably "ugly" (maybe not "butt-ugly"
though). :-)
However, the arguments are solid and I understand wanting to introduce a
new feature in a particular way. Has there been any work done on perf
event injection up to this point or would this be a completely new perf
feature?
--
Darren
>
> An example of that would be tracepoints - there's no free pass to add
> tracepoints in new places and some maintainers elect to use different
> facilities. (or reject all current facilities)
>
>> If you want to redo the fault injection subsystem, then that's another
>> story, but then we need to convert all of its users over.
>
> What i want to see is sane code in futex.c. If we add hooks/callbacks
> i'd like it to be a complete solution helping a lot of usecases not some
> limited approach helping testability only.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team
--
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