[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211125165616.2i24qr6wtuddl32q@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 16:56:16 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Export pelt_thermal_tp
Hi Peter
On 10/28/21 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:22:05AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 06:18:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(pelt_rt_tp);
> > > > > EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(pelt_dl_tp);
> > > > > EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(pelt_irq_tp);
> > > > > EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(pelt_se_tp);
> > > > > +EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(pelt_thermal_tp);
> > > > > EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_cpu_capacity_tp);
> > > > > EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_overutilized_tp);
> > > > > EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(sched_util_est_cfs_tp);
> > > >
> > > > ... and while we're at it, all these exports are unused and should
> > > > be deleted as well.
> > >
> > > This is my concession wrt tracepoints. Actual tracepoints are ABI,
> > > exports are in-kernel interfaces and are explicitly not ABI.
> > >
> > > This way people can use an external module to get at the tracepoint data
> > > without having in-tree tracepoints.
> >
> > All of this makes no sense at all. These are entirely dead exports.
> > If you remove them nothing else changes. Note taht the tracepoints
> > do have in-kernel callers, so if people thing of them as an ABI you've
> > got your ABI already with or without the exports.
>
> These are not normal traceevents, these are tracepoints, the distinction
> is that these things do not show up in tracefs and there is no userspace
> visible representation of them. No userspace gives no ABI.
>
> All they provide is the in-code hook and in-kernel registration
> interface. These EXPORTS export that registration interface, such that
> an out-of-tree module can make use of them.
>
> And yes, unused exports are iffy, out-of-tree modules are iffy, but in
> this case I made an exception since ABI contraints are worse. We very
> clearly state there is no such thing is kabi, so breaking any user of
> these exports if fair game.
>
> Breaking users of userspace trace-events gets kernel patches reverted
> (been there, done that, never want to ever be there again).
>
> People want to trace this stuff, but I *REALLY* do not want to commit to
> ABI, this is the middle-ground that sucks least :/
AFAICS this wasn't picked up. Should I tweak the commit message to make things
clearer?
Thanks!
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists