* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote:
> (2014/04/25 17:20), Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> So I don't think this should be a Kconfig entry, just enable it
> >>> unconditionally. That will further simplify the code.
> >>
> >> Hmm, it consumes some amount of memory (36KB/core) just for the
> >> case of several thousand of kprobes. On enterprise servers and
> >> desktop it's OK, no problem. But I think, some embedded systems
> >> with small resources will not want that. [...]
> >
> > They'll just disable kprobes in general.
>
> No, I'd like to provide kprobes (and dynamic events) to them
> (including me) for debugging and dynamic monitoring, instead of
> modifying code for adding events on their kernel. To solve some
> specific issues, specific events (not generic events) are required.
> Making local patches to add such events is an option, but it
> increases maintenance cost for rebasing. It is better to pay cost to
> maintain this kconfig on upstream as the maintainer for me instead
> of paying such ugly local cost. :(
>
> Anyway, this option is not easy for beginners, I think it should be
> defined with "if EXPERT" option and make it enabled by default.
>
> > Really, at this point complexity is our main concern.
>
> Agreed about complexity issue. However, even if we remove the
> Kconfig, we can just save 6 lines of the code, and one #ifdef block.
> Can that really solve the complexity problem?
It's more about the mental picture about how kprobes works. The fewer
binary state flags, the better.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
