Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
to hell with tunables.
Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
---
init/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ config VM_EVENT_COUNTERS
config SLUB_DEBUG
default y
bool "Enable SLUB debugging support" if EMBEDDED
- depends on SLUB && SYSFS
+ depends on SLUB
help
SLUB has extensive debug support features. Disabling these can
result in significant savings in code size. This also disables
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
> to hell with tunables.
True. We did this because otherwise we would have complex #ifdeffery in slub.
commit f6acb63508700b5f8cd817082b62c96ba907775e
Author: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Apr 29 16:16:06 2008 -0700
slub: #ifdef simplification
If we make SLUB_DEBUG depend on SYSFS then we can simplify some
#ifdefs and avoid others.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
> to hell with tunables.
Applied, thanks!
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
> to hell with tunables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> init/Kconfig | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ config VM_EVENT_COUNTERS
> config SLUB_DEBUG
> default y
> bool "Enable SLUB debugging support" if EMBEDDED
> - depends on SLUB && SYSFS
> + depends on SLUB
> help
> SLUB has extensive debug support features. Disabling these can
> result in significant savings in code size. This also disables
While at it, can you guys move this into lib/Kconfig.debug ?
Max
Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
>> to hell with tunables.
>
> Applied, thanks!
Do not apply. This partially reverts an earlier commit and would cause build
issues because the #ifdef parts in slub.c were not reverted.
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
>>> to hell with tunables.
>> Applied, thanks!
>
> Do not apply. This partially reverts an earlier commit and would cause build
> issues because the #ifdef parts in slub.c were not reverted.
Aww, crap. OK, taking it out.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:10:37PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
>>>> to hell with tunables.
>>> Applied, thanks!
>> Do not apply. This partially reverts an earlier commit and would cause
>> build
>> issues because the #ifdef parts in slub.c were not reverted.
>
> Aww, crap. OK, taking it out.
OK, I'll test-compile it to death.
For now, do you agree that SYSFS=n users shouldn't be discriminated
against poisoning?
As real world situation, NET_NS feature which is currently in
active development doesn't work with SYSFS, so it was a bit of cold
shower to realise that I did much testing of conntracking in netns
without poisoning. :-(
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> OK, I'll test-compile it to death.
>
> For now, do you agree that SYSFS=n users shouldn't be discriminated
> against poisoning?
>
> As real world situation, NET_NS feature which is currently in
> active development doesn't work with SYSFS, so it was a bit of cold
> shower to realise that I did much testing of conntracking in netns
> without poisoning. :-(
I'm okay with that as long as it doesn't break the build :-)
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:10:37PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>>> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>>> Right now, SYSFS=n means no SLUB debugging, no even basic poisoning,
>>>>> to hell with tunables.
>>>> Applied, thanks!
>>> Do not apply. This partially reverts an earlier commit and would cause
>>> build
>>> issues because the #ifdef parts in slub.c were not reverted.
>> Aww, crap. OK, taking it out.
>
> OK, I'll test-compile it to death.
Not sure what the point would be. If you look at the commit you are reverting
then its clear what configurations will break,
> For now, do you agree that SYSFS=n users shouldn't be discriminated
> against poisoning?
If you want a minimal memory footprint then I thought that also implies that
the debug code would not be compiled in?
> As real world situation, NET_NS feature which is currently in
> active development doesn't work with SYSFS, so it was a bit of cold
> shower to realise that I did much testing of conntracking in netns
> without poisoning. :-(
Ohh.. There are kernel features that conflict with SYSFS?