From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:17:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131126181745.GD9958@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131123130433.GA24148@pd.tnic>
* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 04:39:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > I see no problem with that - it's basically like util/*.c is, just
> > between tools.
>
> But why? Why it is a good thing to have to pay attention to linking
> to 10 minilibs when you're using 10 utilities for your tool instead
> of a small number of topic libraries, 2-3 tops?
It's a single line added to the Makefile, the moment a .h is used for
the first time. That's not any appreciable overhead.
This would also allow us to farm out most of tools/perf/util/ into
tools/lib/, without any noticeable changes in build performance or
build dependencies. Down the line it would (hopefully) result in code
improvements to these infrastructure bits, sourced from different
tools.
> What's wrong with the split:
>
> * generic stuff
> * trace events
> * perf events
>
> ?
Well, the natural evolution of interfaces ended up with such a split
up:
comet:~/tip/tools/perf> ls util/*.h
util/annotate.h util/hist.h util/strbuf.h
util/build-id.h util/intlist.h util/strfilter.h
util/cache.h util/levenshtein.h util/strlist.h
util/callchain.h util/machine.h util/svghelper.h
util/cgroup.h util/map.h util/symbol.h
util/color.h util/parse-events.h util/target.h
util/comm.h util/parse-options.h util/thread.h
util/cpumap.h util/perf_regs.h util/thread_map.h
util/data.h util/pmu.h util/tool.h
util/debug.h util/probe-event.h util/top.h
util/dso.h util/probe-finder.h util/trace-event.h
util/dwarf-aux.h util/pstack.h util/types.h
util/event.h util/quote.h util/unwind.h
util/evlist.h util/rblist.h util/util.h
util/evsel.h util/run-command.h util/values.h
util/exec_cmd.h util/session.h util/vdso.h
util/fs.h util/sigchain.h util/xyarray.h
util/header.h util/sort.h
util/help.h util/stat.h
If we want additional structure to it then it should be done via the
namespace, not by forcing them into bigger .a's. So this kind of extra
structure makes sense:
api/types/rbtree.h
api/types/strbuf.h
api/formats/dwarf/unwind.h
api/kernel/pmu.h
api/kernel/cgroup.h
api/kernel/debugfs.h
But stuffing them into types.a, formats.a, kernel.a, not so much.
> With "generic stuff" being something like glibc. There's hardly a
> tool that needs/links to *all* of glibs's functionality yet glibs
> doesn't get split. Do you see what I mean?
glibc being such a catch-all library is:
- partly a historic artifact caused by other constraints that don't
affect our tooling landscape here
- partly a political artifact caused by thinking that does not affect
our tooling landscape
- partly a technological mistake.
There's no need for us to repeat that, at least at this stage.
> > What dependencies do you mean? The only constraint is to not make
> > it circular - but that's easy to do if they are nicely separated
> > per concept. I don't think rbtree.h ever wants to include cmdline
> > processing or debugfs processing.
>
> But if you have a single .a library, you don't care about which
> minilibrary to link to what. You basically do take libkapi.a and
> you're good to go - no need to hunt every dependency.
You still need to figure out the .h file - at that point, when you are
using it for the first time in your tool project, you add the .c file
to the Makefile - it's not hard and there are real advantages.
> With the split above, for example, libkapi.a links to glibc only.
> libtraceevent.a and libperfevent.a both link to libkapi.a and glibc.
> It is all nice and clean.
It does not look that nice and clean once I consider all the nice
helpers that exist in util/*.[ch] - and which we'd like to share as
well.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-26 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-20 21:56 [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/ Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 7:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-21 10:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 11:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-21 11:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 11:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-21 12:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 12:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-11-21 13:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 13:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-11-21 14:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 15:12 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-11-21 15:05 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-11-21 15:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-21 17:37 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-11-21 19:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-22 12:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-22 13:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-22 15:00 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-11-22 15:20 ` David Ahern
2013-11-22 15:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-22 15:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-23 13:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-26 18:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-27 15:42 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-23 13:04 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-26 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-11-27 15:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-11-28 12:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-12-02 20:30 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-11-22 14:57 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2013-11-22 15:43 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20131126181745.GD9958@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rric@kernel.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