On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:40:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I am comfortable with PROVE_RCU being incompatible with non-GPL modules.
> > > After all, it is only a debugging option, not intended for production use.
> >
> > I agree completely. I just wanted to publish that fact because it seems
> > to be little known and can be quite a puzzler.
>
> And I do very much appreciate your publicizing the solution! ;-)
>
Hi Paul,
(Sorry I didn't bring this up until now.)
I don't really have any sympathy for people who use that crud, but from
my POV it's going to generate some grief. Fedora builds rawhide with a
lot of debugging options enabled in order to try and hit issues early
before kernels release.
A few weeks ago, I noticed a report that PROVE_RCU was breaking some
non-GPL junk. Digging a bit further, I noticed quite a number of more
reports of this.
Is there any chances you could reconsider this? Otherwise I'll probably
disable the option in Fedora's debug kernels as well if I continue to
see confused users.
--Kyle
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:37:47AM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:40:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > I am comfortable with PROVE_RCU being incompatible with non-GPL modules.
> > > > After all, it is only a debugging option, not intended for production use.
> > >
> > > I agree completely. I just wanted to publish that fact because it seems
> > > to be little known and can be quite a puzzler.
> >
> > And I do very much appreciate your publicizing the solution! ;-)
> >
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> (Sorry I didn't bring this up until now.)
>
> I don't really have any sympathy for people who use that crud, but from
> my POV it's going to generate some grief. Fedora builds rawhide with a
> lot of debugging options enabled in order to try and hit issues early
> before kernels release.
>
> A few weeks ago, I noticed a report that PROVE_RCU was breaking some
> non-GPL junk. Digging a bit further, I noticed quite a number of more
> reports of this.
>
> Is there any chances you could reconsider this? Otherwise I'll probably
> disable the option in Fedora's debug kernels as well if I continue to
> see confused users.
Hello, Kyle,
My kneejerk reaction is that PROVE_RCU is a developer tool, so I am
OK with it not being set by default in Rawhide. Or have you seen good
value from (say) PROVE_LOCKING in Rawhide?
Thanx, Paul
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> My kneejerk reaction is that PROVE_RCU is a developer tool, so I am
> OK with it not being set by default in Rawhide. Or have you seen good
> value from (say) PROVE_LOCKING in Rawhide?
>
Hi Paul,
I'm fine with this, we try to enable debug options in rawhide in order
to get the most out of bug reports/dmesgs that we can. We've definitely
spotted a lot of lockdep reports by having it enabled for general
desktop use cases (but as debugging has become more intensive, the perf
loss from having it enabled is more costly.)
I suspect we'll be OK with PROVE_RCU off though.
Thanks!
regards, Kyle
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:14:26AM -0400, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > My kneejerk reaction is that PROVE_RCU is a developer tool, so I am
> > OK with it not being set by default in Rawhide. Or have you seen good
> > value from (say) PROVE_LOCKING in Rawhide?
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm fine with this, we try to enable debug options in rawhide in order
> to get the most out of bug reports/dmesgs that we can. We've definitely
> spotted a lot of lockdep reports by having it enabled for general
> desktop use cases (but as debugging has become more intensive, the perf
> loss from having it enabled is more costly.)
>
> I suspect we'll be OK with PROVE_RCU off though.
Sounds good -- but please feel free to bug me about this again if it turns
out that you are seeing too many testing escapes from Rawhide into RHEL.
Until then, my thought is that PROVE_RCU testing should primarily be done
by developers on development trees.
Thanx, Paul