From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Qian Cai <cai@gmx.us>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
arnd@arndb.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: add a new Kconfig for POOL_SIZE
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:51:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44517d7f-c34f-1424-d0db-601e590c626d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <trinity-0de3e85e-8526-4004-b346-3b64dd89bc78-1542634057117@msvc-mesg-gmx021>
On 11/19/2018 08:27 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
> On 11/19/18 at 3:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> Qian,
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>> On Nov 18, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Qian Cai wrote:
>>>>> As the results, systems have 60+ CPUs with both timer and workqueue
>>>>> objects enabled could trigger "ODEBUG: Out of memory. ODEBUG disabled".
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence, add a new Kconfig option so users could adjust ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE
>>>>> accordingly if either timer or workqueue objects are selected.
>>>> why do we need a config option, when the required number can be deduced
>>>> already from the active CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_* and NR_CPUS?
>>>>
>>> It because I am worry about the coupling between the implementation details of
>>> timers and workqueue objects, and the computation in the code you mentioned
>>> here. For example, people could change workqueue.c to have different number
>>> of worekqueues initialized during the early boot in the future which is going to
>>> affect the required pool size, and I am not sure if people are going to adjust the
>>> code in debugobjects.c here as well when they made changes like that.
>>>
>>> Also, the computation could become so complex depends on lots of config
>>> options like perf, hrtimer, and combinations that I have not tested so far which is
>>> difficult to exhausted all the possibilities.
>>>
>>> Hence, I feel like the Kconfig option is more flexible and less error-prone.
>> Quite the contrary. Config options are a pain and truly error-prone if you
>> want to compile general purpose kernels as distributions do.
>>
> Ah, I never thought distributions people would
> enable those debugging options.
Distros like RHEL usually ship two kernels - one for production and one
for debug. The debug kernel does have debugobjects enabled.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-19 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-18 8:22 Qian Cai
2018-11-18 18:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-18 18:56 ` Qian Cai
2018-11-19 8:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-19 13:27 ` Qian Cai
2018-11-19 14:51 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2018-11-19 15:17 ` Qian Cai
2018-11-19 16:19 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-19 16:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-19 16:32 ` Qian Cai
2018-11-18 22:08 ` [PATCH v2] " Qian Cai
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=44517d7f-c34f-1424-d0db-601e590c626d@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=cai@gmx.us \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®