[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091227055637.GA22315@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:56:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, efault@....de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Restore printk sanity
* Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:45:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar said:
>
> > - in the last stable kernel, v2.6.32, still more new printk()s were
> > introduced than pr_*() lines:
> >
> > $ git log -p v2.6.31..v2.6.32 | grep '^+.*\<pr_' | wc -l
> > 2016
> > $ git log -p v2.6.31..v2.6.32 | grep '^+.*\<printk' | wc -l
> > 3531
>
> Ahem. That's not introduced, that's 'added or modified'.
'introduced or modified', yes. In those 5500 lines less than ~20% are
'modifications' (the rest is newly introduced).
> % git log -p v2.6.31..v2.6.32 | grep -C 5 '^+.*\<pr_' | head
> - * In case of failure continue with no timer. */
> + /* Test if the external timer can be actually used.
> + * In case of failure continue without timer. */
> if (unlikely((stmmac_open_ext_timer(dev, priv->tm)) < 0)) {
> - pr_warning("stmmaceth: cannot attach the HW timer\n");
> + pr_warning("stmmaceth: cannot attach the external timer.\n");
> tmrate = 0;
> priv->tm->freq = 0;
> priv->tm->timer_start = stmmac_no_timer_started;
> priv->tm->timer_stop = stmmac_no_timer_stopped;
>
> Meanwhile, the fact that there's only about a 2-to-1 difference in patches
> when there's a 6-to-1 difference in existing code tells me that
> proportionally, there is *more* activity with pr_foo variants than printk.
Yet there's more printks in the kernel than a cycle ago, so without the trend
changing, we've got an infinite supply of future 'conversion' patches.
> printk: 3531 hits in 61126 uses = 5.7% churn
> pr_foo: 2016 hits in 10861 uses = 18.5% churn
Peter's complaint was precisely that there's a lot of 'churn' for pr_*().
> The numbers need much deeper analysis to make any sort of real statistical
> conclusion here...
If you are convinced that there's something else going on as well feel free to
do deeper analysis. So, until some contrary numbers are posted i stay by my
main conclusions.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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