linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: make sched_param arugment static variables in some sched_setscheduler() caller
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 16:12:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100706161253.79bfb761.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1278454438.1537.54.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:13:58 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:51 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Andrew Morton pointed out almost sched_setscheduler() caller are
> > using fixed parameter and it can be converted static. it reduce
> > runtume memory waste a bit.
> 
> We are replacing runtime waste with permanent waste?

Confused.  kernel/trace/ appears to waste resources by design, so what's
the issue?

I don't think this change will cause more waste.  It'll consume 4 bytes
of .data and will save a little more .text.

> > 
> > Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> 
> 
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ trace_selftest_startup_nop(struct tracer *trace, struct trace_array *tr)
> >  static int trace_wakeup_test_thread(void *data)
> >  {
> >  	/* Make this a RT thread, doesn't need to be too high */
> > -	struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 5 };
> > +	static struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 5 };
> >  	struct completion *x = data;
> >  
> 
> This is a thread that runs on boot up to test the sched_wakeup tracer.
> Then it is deleted and all memory is reclaimed.
> 
> Thus, this patch just took memory that was usable at run time and
> removed it permanently.
> 
> Please Cc me on all tracing changes.

Well if we're so worried about resource wastage then how about making
all boot-time-only text and data reside in __init and __initdata
sections rather than hanging around uselessly in memory for ever?

Only that's going to be hard because we went and added pointers into
.init.text from .data due to `struct tracer.selftest', which will cause
a storm of section mismatch warnings.  Doh, should have invoked the
selftests from initcalls.  That might open the opportunity of running
the selftests by modprobing the selftest module, too.

And I _do_ wish the selftest module was modprobeable, rather than this
monstrosity:

#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE_SELFTEST
/* Let selftest have access to static functions in this file */
#include "trace_selftest.c"
#endif

Really?  Who had a tastebudectomy over there?  At least call it
trace_selftest.inc or something, so poor schmucks don't go scrabbling
around wondering "how the hell does this thing get built oh no they
didn't really go and #include it did they?"


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-07-06 23:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-30  9:25 [mmotm 0611][PATCH 00/11] various OOM bugfixes v3 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30  9:27 ` [PATCH 01/11] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30  9:27 ` [PATCH 02/11] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 13:55   ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01  0:07     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-01 13:38       ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30  9:28 ` [PATCH 03/11] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:19   ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01  0:07     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30  9:29 ` [PATCH 04/11] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 13:57   ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30  9:30 ` [PATCH 05/11] oom: /proc/<pid>/oom_score treat kernel thread honestly KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:03   ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01  0:07     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-01 14:36       ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30  9:31 ` [PATCH 06/11] oom: kill duplicate OOM_DISABLE check KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:10   ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30  9:31 ` [PATCH 07/11] oom: move OOM_DISABLE check from oom_kill_task to out_of_memory() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:20   ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-01  0:07     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30  9:32 ` [PATCH 08/11] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30  9:32 ` [PATCH 09/11] oom: remove child->mm check from oom_kill_process() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:30   ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-30  9:33 ` [PATCH 10/11] oom: give the dying task a higher priority KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30  9:35   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-30 14:40     ` Minchan Kim
2010-07-02 21:49   ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-06  0:49     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-06  0:50       ` [PATCH 1/2] security: add const to security_task_setscheduler() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-06  0:51       ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: make sched_param arugment static variables in some sched_setscheduler() caller KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-06 22:13         ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-06 23:12           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-07-06 23:49             ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-07  0:02               ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-07 19:43                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-30  9:34 ` [PATCH 11/11] oom: multi threaded process coredump don't make deadlock KOSAKI Motohiro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100706161253.79bfb761.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).