public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>,
	hch@infradead.org, pagg@oss.sgi.com, erikj@sgi.com, pj@sgi.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] add task handling notifier
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:22:07 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080108192207.4646e574.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1199846820.17010.166.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:47:00 -0800 Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > > 
> ...
> > > Am I to conclude then that there's no point in addressing the issues other
> > > people pointed out? While I (obviously, since I submitted the patch disagree),
> > > I'm not certain how others feel. My main point for disagreement here is (I'm
> > > sorry to repeat this) that as long as certain code isn't allowed into the kernel
> > > I think it is not unreasonable to at least expect the kernel to provide some
> > > fundamental infrastructure that can be used for those (supposedly
> > > unacceptable) bits. All I did here was utilizing the base infrastructure I want
> > > added to clean up code that appeared pretty ad-hoc.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ah.  That's a brand new requirement.
> 
> In all fairness it's not really a brand new requirement -- just one that
> wasn't strongly emphasized during prior attempts to get something like
> this in.
> 
> I had a mostly-working patch for this on top of the Task Watchers v2
> patch set. I never posted that specific patch because it had a race with
> module unloading and the fix only increased the overhead you were
> unhappy with. I mentioned it briefly in my lengthy [PATCH 0/X]
> description for Task Watchers v2 (http://lwn.net/Articles/207873/):
> 
> "TODO:
> ...
> I'm working on three more patches that add support for creating a task
> watcher from within a module using an ELF section. They haven't recieved
> as much attention since I've been focusing on measuring the performance
> impact of these patches."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Would tainting the kernel upon registration of out-of-tree "notifiers"
> be more acceptable?

How does that work?  module.c does the register/deregister on behalf of the
module?

I certainly encourage people to disagreee with me here, but my current
thinking is:

- the cleanup aspect isn't worth the runtime overhead and

- the support-modular-users aspect is largely new and would need a lot
  more description and justification (with examples) before we can even
  begin to evaluate it.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-09  3:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-20 13:11 [PATCH 0/4] add task handling notifier Jan Beulich
2007-12-20 22:25 ` Ingo Oeser
2007-12-21  7:36   ` Jan Beulich
2007-12-23 12:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-12-25 22:05   ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-08 13:38     ` Jan Beulich
2008-01-08 22:14       ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-09  0:03         ` Paul Jackson
2008-01-09  0:31           ` Andrew Morton
2008-01-09  2:47         ` Matt Helsley
2008-01-09  3:22           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-01-09  9:52         ` Jan Beulich
2008-01-09 10:03           ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-01-09  2:24   ` Matt Helsley
2008-01-09  3:27     ` Matthew Helsley

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=20080108192207.4646e574.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=erikj@sgi.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matthltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=pagg@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=pj@sgi.com \
    /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