[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53F773A2.7040904@sr71.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:45:22 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name, lauraa@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] warn on performance-impacting configs aka. TAINT_PERFORMANCE
On 08/22/2014 09:32 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_FREE
>> > + "DEBUG_OBJECTS_FREE",
>> > +#endif
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
>> > + "DEBUG_KMEMLEAK",
>> > +#endif
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
>> > + "DEBUG_PAGEALLOC",
> I think coverage profiling also impact performance.
> So I sould also put CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL in the list.
Would CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL be the better one to check? With plain
GCOV_KERNEL, I don't think we will, by default, put the coverage
information in any files and slow them down.
--
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