* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:02 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
2002-10-22 2:53 ` Jeff Garzik
` (3 more replies)
2002-10-22 2:13 ` Martin J. Bligh
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 4 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-21 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Monday 21 October 2002 21:02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > 1) Roman Zippel's new kernel configuration system.
> > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6898.html
> > Code: http://www.xs4all.nl/~zippel/lc/
>
> I support merge, Linus seemed to support it with the caveat that he said
> he didn't personally see much discussion...
After CML2, I think everybody's too afraid to speak up. :)
> > 2) Ted Tso's new ext2/ext3 code with extended attributes and access
> > control lists.
> > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6787.html
> > Code: bk://extfs.bkbits.net/extfs-2.5-update
> > http://thunk.org/tytso/linux/extfs-2.5
>
> No comment other than I notice tytso's patches got dropped (at least
> once/twice?). Maybe viro hasn't reviewed them?
Reading meaning into Linus dropping patches without explanation is like
reading meaning into sheep entrails. (At least with the entrails, you know
the future is likely to contain mutton.)
> > 5) VM large page support (Many people) (in -mm tree)
> > http://lse.sourceforge.net/
>
> Rob - this URL doesn't seen to have anything directly to do with large
> page support.
I got the URL straight from Guillaume's list. Haven't looked at it. I don't
use Oracle, and the largest box I have immediate access to has maybe 2
gigabytes of memory in it. (256 megs is pretty standard 'round here...)
> > 6) Page table sharing (Daniel Phillips, Dave McCracken) (in -mm tree)
> > http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=7855063&list=35
> > (A newer version of which seems to be at:)
> > http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6446.html
>
> IMO 2.7.x item...
Yes and no. Rmap went in already, and this mostly counteracts rmap's main
downside. Still, it is cutting it a bit close...
> > 7) Dynamic Probes (dprobes team)
> > http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux/projects/dpro
> >bes
>
> why does this need to be the mainline kernel? this is another type of
> thing that can live as a patch, IMO...
Ask IBM. :)
> > 8) Zerocopy NFS (Hirokazu Takahashi)
> > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0204.1/0429.html
>
> this is already merged, isn't it??
Another item straight from Guillaume's list...
> > 9) High resolution timers (George Anzinger, etc.)
> > http://high-res-timers.sourceforge.net/
>
> no comment, I've heard arguments that high-res timers would be useful,
> but haven't read the patch myself so won't comment...
I vaguely remember Linus had some objections that it plays with the clock tick
and potentially penalizes everybody... Hmmm...
A quick google comes up with this:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-28/0360.html
> > 10) EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System) (EVMS team)
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/evms
>
> Sounds like 2.7.x material, viro pointed out several problems ...
This one's a problem. LVM1 is dead, so either LVM2 or EVMS are needed to
avoid a major functional regression vs 2.4...
> > 11) Linux Kernel Crash Dumps (Matt Robinson, LKCD team)
> > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/7060.html
> > Code: http://lkcd.sourceforge.net/
>
> I would personally _love_ to see this merged, but I think it's 2.7.x
> material given the recent comments (unless they get fixed up)
T minus 6 days, and counting... :)
> > 12) Rewrite of the console layer (James Simmons)
> > http://linuxconsole.sourceforge.net/
>
> needs more review... but hasn't some of this stuff already made it in?
> (or am I thinking about fbdev...?)
This and the page table sharing are probably the two that mean the most to me
personally, actually. Not that this is relevant... :)
> > 13) Kexec, luanch ELF format linux kernel from Linux (Eric W. Biederman)
> > http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6584.html
>
> Useful, but at the same time not many people will use this I think. It
> may need to live as a patch for a while, if not for a long while...
I have an odd usage that would be helped by having the linux kernel and a
ramdisk in the same image, but that's a question of getting support into lilo
or grub, not the linux kernel itself. There's probably already a way to do
it (actually, I'm sure I could if I wanted to hack lilo), it just hasn't made
it far enough up my to-do list yet...
> > 14) USAGI IPv6.
> >
> > Yoshifuji Hideyaki points out that ipv6 is very important overseas
> > (where some entire countries make do with a single class B ipv4
> >
> > address range). He says:
> >>Well, our IPsec is ready, runs and is tested...
> >>ftp://ftp.linux-ipv6.org/pub/usagi/patch/ipsec/
>
> The USAGI guys have been slowly splitting up their patches and
> submitting them... AFAIK DaveM is just waiting on more split-up IPv6
> patches from them...
Okay, ARE the Usagi IPV6 patches and Dave's work dovetailing into one project?
I'll happily collate them if so, I'd just like to hear it from one of the
principal authors...
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-10-22 2:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-22 2:58 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-10-22 17:32 ` Nicholas Wourms
2002-10-22 3:20 ` Robert Love
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-10-22 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: landley; +Cc: Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 21 October 2002 21:02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>8) Zerocopy NFS (Hirokazu Takahashi)
>>>http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0204.1/0429.html
>>
>>this is already merged, isn't it??
>
>
> Another item straight from Guillaume's list...
You can remove this item...
>>>10) EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System) (EVMS team)
>>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/evms
>>
>>Sounds like 2.7.x material, viro pointed out several problems ...
>
>
> This one's a problem. LVM1 is dead, so either LVM2 or EVMS are needed to
> avoid a major functional regression vs 2.4...
A political regression only... if EVMS is not good enough for inclusion
in mainline, vendors can merge it and/or LVM2 to avoid problems. _We_
have higher standards for quality :) If no LVM is ready for 2.6.x, we
have no LVM. It's that simple... If no one has stepped up to clean up
LVM1, and LVM2 and EVMS are not ready for inclusion, there's not much we
can do about it. That's _not_ a reason to merge crap...
>>>14) USAGI IPv6.
>>>
>>>Yoshifuji Hideyaki points out that ipv6 is very important overseas
>>>(where some entire countries make do with a single class B ipv4
>>>
>>>address range). He says:
>>>
>>>>Well, our IPsec is ready, runs and is tested...
>>>>ftp://ftp.linux-ipv6.org/pub/usagi/patch/ipsec/
>>>
>>The USAGI guys have been slowly splitting up their patches and
>>submitting them... AFAIK DaveM is just waiting on more split-up IPv6
>>patches from them...
>
>
> Okay, ARE the Usagi IPV6 patches and Dave's work dovetailing into one project?
> I'll happily collate them if so, I'd just like to hear it from one of the
> principal authors...
I'm sure he can elaborate, but AFAIK DaveM and Alexey are only doing
IPSEC... where USAGI and IPSEC intersect, there will be clashes. So if
USAGI is waiting on IPSEC to submit more patches, things are waiting on
DaveM. But if there are IPSEC-independent patches, USAGI should go
ahead and send them :)
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:53 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-10-22 2:58 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-10-22 17:32 ` Nicholas Wourms
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-22 2:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: landley, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
Em Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:53:03PM -0400, Jeff Garzik escreveu:
> >Okay, ARE the Usagi IPV6 patches and Dave's work dovetailing into one
> >project? I'll happily collate them if so, I'd just like to hear it from
> >one of the principal authors...
> I'm sure he can elaborate, but AFAIK DaveM and Alexey are only doing
> IPSEC... where USAGI and IPSEC intersect, there will be clashes. So if
> USAGI is waiting on IPSEC to submit more patches, things are waiting on
> DaveM. But if there are IPSEC-independent patches, USAGI should go
> ahead and send them :)
They are sending it, and David already stated here that he will be using some
pieces of USAGI's ipsec work, but the core is being coded by him and Alexey.
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-22 2:58 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2002-10-22 17:32 ` Nicholas Wourms
2002-10-22 17:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-23 15:36 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Wourms @ 2002-10-22 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>>10) EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System) (EVMS team)
>>>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/evms
>>>
>>>Sounds like 2.7.x material, viro pointed out several problems ...
>>
>>
>> This one's a problem. LVM1 is dead, so either LVM2 or EVMS are needed to
>> avoid a major functional regression vs 2.4...
>
> A political regression only... if EVMS is not good enough for inclusion
> in mainline, vendors can merge it and/or LVM2 to avoid problems. _We_
> have higher standards for quality :) If no LVM is ready for 2.6.x, we
> have no LVM. It's that simple... If no one has stepped up to clean up
> LVM1, and LVM2 and EVMS are not ready for inclusion, there's not much we
> can do about it. That's _not_ a reason to merge crap...
>
As was stated by Dave Jones[1], this is something that will probably should
go in after the freeze. I'm afraid that having seperate patches is just
unacceptable. There are many of us out there who use LVM, and I don't
think it is appropriate to release a kernel without it. Obviously you
haven't been paying attention because Joe Thornber has been actively honing
the device mapper interface over the last couple of weeks. AFAICT, he has
addressed all of the issues which were discussed in the critique of his
code. Alan's had it in his tree for awhile now, which shows that it is at
least partially suitable. When it's ready to go in, I'm sure it'll meet
your standards. As for EVMS, I'd consider that a whole different beast.
Can you mount LVM partitions with using EVMS tools? We should probably
keep the two seperate if this is not the case.
Cheers,
Nicholas
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103520598902877&w=2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 17:32 ` Nicholas Wourms
@ 2002-10-22 17:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-22 17:48 ` Nicholas Wourms
2002-10-23 15:36 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2002-10-22 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicholas Wourms; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> As was stated by Dave Jones[1], this is something that will probably should
> go in after the freeze. I'm afraid that having seperate patches is just
> unacceptable.
If you want your volume manager of choice beein included in 2.6 help to
get it in shape quickly. It's rather simple..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 17:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2002-10-22 17:48 ` Nicholas Wourms
2002-10-22 18:25 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Wourms @ 2002-10-22 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: linux-kernel
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>
>>As was stated by Dave Jones[1], this is something that will probably should
>>go in after the freeze. I'm afraid that having seperate patches is just
>>unacceptable.
>
>
> If you want your volume manager of choice beein included in 2.6 help to
> get it in shape quickly. It's rather simple..
>
Like arguing with a brick wall...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 17:48 ` Nicholas Wourms
@ 2002-10-22 18:25 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-22 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicholas Wourms; +Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 18:48, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> >
> >>As was stated by Dave Jones[1], this is something that will probably should
> >>go in after the freeze. I'm afraid that having seperate patches is just
> >>unacceptable.
> >
> >
> > If you want your volume manager of choice beein included in 2.6 help to
> > get it in shape quickly. It's rather simple..
> >
>
> Like arguing with a brick wall...
I will agree. I will observe two details
1. The wall normally wins
2. Christoph is right
In the mean time it would really help if people took the EVMS/LVM2
debate down to the technical aspects not the marketing ones (at least on
this list). That means fixing the bugs, cleaning up the code, auditing
it etc.
The folks who want to have long rambling discussions rather than fix the
code or test it are encouraged to find a private brick wall, bartender
(or different list) to talk at
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 17:32 ` Nicholas Wourms
2002-10-22 17:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2002-10-23 15:36 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-23 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nwourms, linux-kernel
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 12:32, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> As was stated by Dave Jones[1], this is something that will probably should
> go in after the freeze.
This is just a thought, and it's from somebody who's not going to actually be
making any of these decisions, but my idea of "goes in after the freeze" is
the same as my idea of "goes in during the stable series".
If you'd be happy including something between stable.0 and stable.1, or
stable.5 and stable.6, (whether "stable" is called "2.6", "3.0", or "fred")
then it makes sense to put it in after the freeze. But if you don't think it
would be a good idea to insert it after stable.0, then inserting it after the
freeze at all is a bit hypocritical. (Otherwise the freeze isn't too
meaningful.)
Now, given that, if it could go in during the stable series, why not wait
until then and not confuse the issue during stabilization and shutdown of the
-pre series? (Or at least hold off until closer to dot-0 release date, and
give the existing infrastructure a chance to settle down a bit first. At the
very least not rush to get too much in immediately after the freeze.)
Admittedly the first dozen releases of 2.4 are a bad example of "stable", but
reiserfs did go in circa 2.4.1 and nobody really minded that bit. Maybe LVM
and EVMS are similar, self contained, can't possibly hurt anybody who isn't
using it type things. (I don't know. The word "maybe" is an important
weasel word in that sentence.)
Rob
--
http://penguicon.sf.net - Terry Pratchett, Eric Raymond, Pete Abrams, Illiad,
CmdrTaco, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and caffienated jello. Well why not?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
2002-10-22 2:53 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-10-22 3:20 ` Robert Love
[not found] ` <200210211900.42772.landley@trommello.org>
2002-10-22 6:45 ` george anzinger
2002-10-22 10:15 ` Matt D. Robinson
3 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2002-10-22 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: landley; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 17:42, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 21 October 2002 21:02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Rob Landley wrote:
>
> > > 9) High resolution timers (George Anzinger, etc.)
> > > http://high-res-timers.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > no comment, I've heard arguments that high-res timers would be useful,
> > but haven't read the patch myself so won't comment...
>
> I vaguely remember Linus had some objections that it plays with the clock tick
> and potentially penalizes everybody... Hmmm...
>
> A quick google comes up with this:
>
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-28/0360.html
George said he would change the code to meet Linus's issues (re the sub
jiffies stuff). But there was not much debate either way, and I suspect
George may in fact be correct.
George also offered an interface-only version of the patch that
implements the POSIX clocks and timers syscalls, without the high
resolution support, so it would be nice to at the very least merge the
missing POSIX functionality.
Robert Love
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
2002-10-22 2:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-22 3:20 ` Robert Love
@ 2002-10-22 6:45 ` george anzinger
[not found] ` <200210221232.IAA03454@mc.com>
2002-10-22 10:15 ` Matt D. Robinson
3 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: george anzinger @ 2002-10-22 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: landley; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
Rob Landley wrote:
>
> On Monday 21 October 2002 21:02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Rob Landley wrote:
> > > 1) Roman Zippel's new kernel configuration system.
> > > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6898.html
> > > Code: http://www.xs4all.nl/~zippel/lc/
> >
> > I support merge, Linus seemed to support it with the caveat that he said
> > he didn't personally see much discussion...
>
> After CML2, I think everybody's too afraid to speak up. :)
>
> > > 2) Ted Tso's new ext2/ext3 code with extended attributes and access
> > > control lists.
> > > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6787.html
> > > Code: bk://extfs.bkbits.net/extfs-2.5-update
> > > http://thunk.org/tytso/linux/extfs-2.5
> >
> > No comment other than I notice tytso's patches got dropped (at least
> > once/twice?). Maybe viro hasn't reviewed them?
>
> Reading meaning into Linus dropping patches without explanation is like
> reading meaning into sheep entrails. (At least with the entrails, you know
> the future is likely to contain mutton.)
>
> > > 5) VM large page support (Many people) (in -mm tree)
> > > http://lse.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Rob - this URL doesn't seen to have anything directly to do with large
> > page support.
>
> I got the URL straight from Guillaume's list. Haven't looked at it. I don't
> use Oracle, and the largest box I have immediate access to has maybe 2
> gigabytes of memory in it. (256 megs is pretty standard 'round here...)
>
> > > 6) Page table sharing (Daniel Phillips, Dave McCracken) (in -mm tree)
> > > http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=7855063&list=35
> > > (A newer version of which seems to be at:)
> > > http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6446.html
> >
> > IMO 2.7.x item...
>
> Yes and no. Rmap went in already, and this mostly counteracts rmap's main
> downside. Still, it is cutting it a bit close...
>
> > > 7) Dynamic Probes (dprobes team)
> > > http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux/projects/dpro
> > >bes
> >
> > why does this need to be the mainline kernel? this is another type of
> > thing that can live as a patch, IMO...
>
> Ask IBM. :)
>
> > > 8) Zerocopy NFS (Hirokazu Takahashi)
> > > http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0204.1/0429.html
> >
> > this is already merged, isn't it??
>
> Another item straight from Guillaume's list...
>
> > > 9) High resolution timers (George Anzinger, etc.)
> > > http://high-res-timers.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > no comment, I've heard arguments that high-res timers would be useful,
> > but haven't read the patch myself so won't comment...
>
> I vaguely remember Linus had some objections that it plays with the clock tick
> and potentially penalizes everybody... Hmmm...
>
> A quick google comes up with this:
>
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-28/0360.html
Hm, I had not seen this. He is right, but the patch
provides an out :) The standard says a timer can overrun.
If a timer is repeating so fast as to bogdown the system,
the code lumps enough of them to unload the system into the
overrun count and doesn't take the interrupts.
-g
>
> > > 10) EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System) (EVMS team)
> > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/evms
> >
> > Sounds like 2.7.x material, viro pointed out several problems ...
>
> This one's a problem. LVM1 is dead, so either LVM2 or EVMS are needed to
> avoid a major functional regression vs 2.4...
>
> > > 11) Linux Kernel Crash Dumps (Matt Robinson, LKCD team)
> > > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/7060.html
> > > Code: http://lkcd.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > I would personally _love_ to see this merged, but I think it's 2.7.x
> > material given the recent comments (unless they get fixed up)
>
> T minus 6 days, and counting... :)
>
> > > 12) Rewrite of the console layer (James Simmons)
> > > http://linuxconsole.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > needs more review... but hasn't some of this stuff already made it in?
> > (or am I thinking about fbdev...?)
>
> This and the page table sharing are probably the two that mean the most to me
> personally, actually. Not that this is relevant... :)
>
> > > 13) Kexec, luanch ELF format linux kernel from Linux (Eric W. Biederman)
> > > http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6584.html
> >
> > Useful, but at the same time not many people will use this I think. It
> > may need to live as a patch for a while, if not for a long while...
>
> I have an odd usage that would be helped by having the linux kernel and a
> ramdisk in the same image, but that's a question of getting support into lilo
> or grub, not the linux kernel itself. There's probably already a way to do
> it (actually, I'm sure I could if I wanted to hack lilo), it just hasn't made
> it far enough up my to-do list yet...
>
> > > 14) USAGI IPv6.
> > >
> > > Yoshifuji Hideyaki points out that ipv6 is very important overseas
> > > (where some entire countries make do with a single class B ipv4
> > >
> > > address range). He says:
> > >>Well, our IPsec is ready, runs and is tested...
> > >>ftp://ftp.linux-ipv6.org/pub/usagi/patch/ipsec/
> >
> > The USAGI guys have been slowly splitting up their patches and
> > submitting them... AFAIK DaveM is just waiting on more split-up IPv6
> > patches from them...
>
> Okay, ARE the Usagi IPV6 patches and Dave's work dovetailing into one project?
> I'll happily collate them if so, I'd just like to hear it from one of the
> principal authors...
>
> Rob
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-10-22 6:45 ` george anzinger
@ 2002-10-22 10:15 ` Matt D. Robinson
3 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Matt D. Robinson @ 2002-10-22 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote:
|>On Monday 21 October 2002 21:02, Jeff Garzik wrote:
|>> Rob Landley wrote:
|>> > 11) Linux Kernel Crash Dumps (Matt Robinson, LKCD team)
|>> > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/7060.html
|>> > Code: http://lkcd.sourceforge.net/
|>>
|>> I would personally _love_ to see this merged, but I think it's 2.7.x
|>> material given the recent comments (unless they get fixed up)
|>
|>T minus 6 days, and counting... :)
We've incorporated the majority of Christoph's requests, along
with changes requested by a few other developers. We'll post the
next set later tonight after testing a few SMP/UP/IDE/SCSI crashes
with all of the changes.
There are a couple of things that we didn't change due to the
nature of the project, which I'll first discuss with Christoph
off-line to avoid going down a big rathole. :) Suffice it to
say that we incorporated almost everything he asked for.
We'll make this deadline.
--Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:02 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-10-22 2:13 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-22 3:01 ` Karim Yaghmour
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2002-10-22 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik, landley; +Cc: Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
>> 5) VM large page support (Many people) (in -mm tree)
>> http://lse.sourceforge.net/
>
> Rob - this URL doesn't seen to have anything directly to do with large page support.
>
> Others-
> Is this not already in the kernel? I still want to actually see someone from Oracle actually say "I will use this" or "we find this useful".
>
> [I cynically propose a sys_oracle and be done with it <g>]
Oracle are not the only users of this, nor the only database in
the world (though they often think they are) ;-)
There is *something* in the kernel ... whether it's useful or not
is a matter of opinion - what we see as remaining to do is to
provide hooks for generic interfaces (eg shmem, mmap, sbrk).
>> 6) Page table sharing (Daniel Phillips, Dave McCracken) (in -mm tree)
>> http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=7855063&list=35
>> (A newer version of which seems to be at:)
>> http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6446.html
>
> IMO 2.7.x item...
Would be if it wasn't needed to alleviate all the overhead incurred
by rmap. As it is, the extra ZONE_NORMAL load kills large boxes dead ;-(
Will provide speedups for the fork+exec cycle for the low end too.
M.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:02 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-21 21:42 ` Rob Landley
2002-10-22 2:13 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2002-10-22 3:01 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-10-22 8:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Karim Yaghmour @ 2002-10-22 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: landley, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel, LTT-Dev
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 3) Linux Trace Toolkit (LTT) (Karim Yaghmour)
> > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/7016.html
> > Patch:
> > http://opersys.com/ftp/pub/LTT/ExtraPatches/patch-ltt-linux-2.5.44-vanilla-021019-2.2.bz2
> > User tools: http://opersys.com/ftp/pub/LTT/TraceToolkit-0.9.6pre2.tgz
>
> I dunno if this needs to be in the kernel...
We've had this debate with a couple of folks before, most notably with
Ingo Molnar. Here was the essence of my reply to Ingo then:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103272155416405&w=2
Ingo went on to provide us with a to-do list which we've complied with
100%.
Basically, there are plent of day-to-day user needs which LTT fills
perfectly. We don't expect users to recompile their kernel in order
to use a symbolic debugger and I don't see why users should need to
recompile their kernel to:
- solve complex inter-process interactions
- obtain exact measures regarding kernel vs. app time
- understand the exact dynamic interaction between their app, the
kernel and all the other processes running on the system.
- etc.
Here was Linus' take:
> I suspect we'll want to have some form of event tracing eventually, but
> I'm personally pretty convinced that it needs to be a per-CPU thing, and
> the core mechanism would need to be very lightweight.
From:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103271992115305&w=2
As I explained at that time to Linus, these are exactly the features we
are looking for in LTT. And since that posting, we've added precisely
those features (as I had promissed Linus, must I add), among many others
requested by folks on the LKML. If there's something we've missed, I'm
all ears.
Karim
===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
karim@opersys.com
Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:02 ` Jeff Garzik
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-10-22 3:01 ` Karim Yaghmour
@ 2002-10-22 8:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-10-22 12:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-23 10:28 ` Vamsi Krishna S .
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2002-10-22 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: landley, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:
> > 13) Kexec, luanch ELF format linux kernel from Linux (Eric W. Biederman)
> > http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/6584.html
>
> Useful, but at the same time not many people will use this I think. It may need
> to live as a patch for a while, if not for a long while...
Hmm. 2+ years is not enough?
A couple of comments.
The limitation to the ELF file format is long gone, (so the summary is
incorrect). sys_kexec can launch any random kernel, it just needs an
appropriate user space program that understands the format. kexec
bzImage works, and I suspect kexec could even start booting windows
from the boot sector of a hard drive.
The code has been looked at, and discussed by the kmonte, and bootimg
authors, and the kexec interface has not been found to be a problem.
Except for tracking kernel interface changes the code really has not
needed to change in quite a long while.
The biggest challenge right now is to track down the strange and
mysterious failures caused by driver or BIOS bugs. Kexec is
inherently open to a bug anywhere in the system causing it to fail.
The development work consists of writing code, and inventing
techniques to track down those mysterious failures. Kernel debuggers
don't work when you don't have a running kernel.
All of this is generic kernel stabilization work, and it sounds to me
like a good complement to the upcoming 2.5.x stabilization efforts.
A smallish user base may be a good argument against it. But I unless
I have miscounted there are quite a few people playing with bootimg,
and kmonte, not to mention the earlier versions of kexec.
To do things right sys_kexec needs access to call device_shutdown, and
the reboot notifier chain. The latter is available only as a static
variable in kernel/sys.c. And neither of them are exported from the
kernel.
Keeping sys_kexec out of the kernel seems to encourage half baked,
half debugged implementations that just work for their authors, and
are limited to what it is easy to do as a module.
Putting in the sys_kexec patch in the kernel will certainly discourage
hacks in the code, and encourage those last few strange mysterious
failures to be tracked. Plus it will put pressure on driver
maintainers to fix various bugs in their code. And the patch is
not very intrusive at all so I fail to see a downside except bloat.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:02 ` Jeff Garzik
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2002-10-22 8:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2002-10-22 12:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-23 10:28 ` Vamsi Krishna S .
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2002-10-22 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: landley, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:02:33PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 11) Linux Kernel Crash Dumps (Matt Robinson, LKCD team)
> > Announce: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/7060.html
> > Code: http://lkcd.sourceforge.net/
>
> I would personally _love_ to see this merged, but I think it's 2.7.x
> material given the recent comments (unless they get fixed up)
The few core changes they make are fine - the rest is purely driver work.
IMHO we should merge the core dump infrastructure (i.e. notifiers,
Kerntypes, etc..) - the rest can be added when ready and before that you
should be able to simply load an externally compiled dump.o anyway..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-22 2:02 ` Jeff Garzik
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2002-10-22 12:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2002-10-23 10:28 ` Vamsi Krishna S .
2002-10-23 16:03 ` Rob Landley
5 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Vamsi Krishna S . @ 2002-10-23 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: landley, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 02:06:29AM +0000, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > 7) Dynamic Probes (dprobes team)
> > http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux/projects/dprobes
>
> why does this need to be the mainline kernel? this is another type of
> thing that can live as a patch, IMO...
>
We are not proposing the entire dprobes patch to be in kernel. It doesn't
have to be. We are proposing for inclusion the "kprobes" patchset at
http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/patches/?project_id=141 which provides
the basic infrastructure in the kernel for setting up and handling
breakpoints automatically in kernel space. Once this small piece is in,
we can implement comprehensive tools like dynamic probes as external
kernel modules without having to patch the kernel.
--
Vamsi Krishna S.
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Lab, Bangalore.
Ph: +91 80 5044959
Internet: vamsi@in.ibm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-23 10:28 ` Vamsi Krishna S .
@ 2002-10-23 16:03 ` Rob Landley
2002-10-24 7:23 ` Vamsi Krishna S .
0 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-23 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: vamsi, Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 05:28, Vamsi Krishna S . wrote:
> We are not proposing the entire dprobes patch to be in kernel. It doesn't
> have to be. We are proposing for inclusion the "kprobes" patchset at
> http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/patches/?project_id=141 which provides
> the basic infrastructure in the kernel for setting up and handling
> breakpoints automatically in kernel space. Once this small piece is in,
> we can implement comprehensive tools like dynamic probes as external
> kernel modules without having to patch the kernel.
Okay, so if patch 1 is kprobes itself, what exactly is the status of patches
2-4? (Optional but nice? Cleanups? Or are you pushing as hard for them as
for part 1?)
I thought 2-4 paved the way for dprobes, but if you're not trying to get
dprobes in...?
Rob
--
http://penguicon.sf.net - Terry Pratchett, Eric Raymond, Pete Abrams, Illiad,
CmdrTaco, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and caffienated jello. Well why not?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Son of crunch time: the list v1.2.
2002-10-23 16:03 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-10-24 7:23 ` Vamsi Krishna S .
0 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Vamsi Krishna S . @ 2002-10-24 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Guillaume Boissiere, linux-kernel
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:03:20AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 05:28, Vamsi Krishna S . wrote:
>
> > We are not proposing the entire dprobes patch to be in kernel. It doesn't
> > have to be. We are proposing for inclusion the "kprobes" patchset at
> > http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/patches/?project_id=141 which provides
> > the basic infrastructure in the kernel for setting up and handling
> > breakpoints automatically in kernel space. Once this small piece is in,
> > we can implement comprehensive tools like dynamic probes as external
> > kernel modules without having to patch the kernel.
>
> Okay, so if patch 1 is kprobes itself, what exactly is the status of patches
> 2-4? (Optional but nice? Cleanups? Or are you pushing as hard for them as
> for part 1?)
>
2-4 are additional features which are required to implement a tool like
dprobes. It is nice to have them all in the kernel, so full-featured tools
like dprobes could be built without touching the kernel.
> I thought 2-4 paved the way for dprobes, but if you're not trying to get
> dprobes in...?
>
dprobes doesn't have to be in the mainline kernel, but dprobes (or
any such tool) requires some basic support from the kernel for setting
up breakpoints. kprobes provides these fundamental facilities which
are useable as-is.
Thanks,
Vamsi.
--
Vamsi Krishna S.
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Lab, Bangalore.
Ph: +91 80 5044959
Internet: vamsi@in.ibm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread