Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:28:32 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Prevent Kconfig from asking pointless
 questions
Message-ID: <20150420182831.GA19510@gmail.com>
References: <20150416183812.GA5571@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150418130340.GA26931@gmail.com>
 <20150418133444.GD23685@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150418143238.GA2337@gmail.com>
 <20150419020541.GA5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150420113554.598e503f@sluggy>
 <20150420170902.GU5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20150420180107.GE24936@home.goodmis.org>
 <20150420180904.GA19229@gmail.com>
 <20150420142149.3ac58a2c@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150420142149.3ac58a2c@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2000
Lines: 53


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:09:04 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > So the disadvantage is that if a boot default is wrong, we'll hear 
> > about it eventually and can fix/improve it.
> > 
> > If a sysctl knob is wrong, people will just 'tune' it and forget 
> > to propagate it to the kernel proper (why should they).
> 
> My fear is that there is no one true value. [...]

Do we know that?

> [...] One person complains about it, we change it, then someone else 
> complains about the new value. That would be even worse.

At that point we can still add a sysctl, if valid arguments are 
offered.

> > Which is fine for something like ftrace and other ad-hoc 
> > instrumentation that is generally very fine tuned to a given bug 
> > or given piece of hardware, but for something like the RCU 
> > implementation of the kernel - even if it's just a RT side thought 
> > of it - I'm not so sure about it.
> 
> I would argue than every case is different, and only the sysadmin 
> would know the right value. Thus, just set it to one, and if that's 
> not good enough, then the sysadmins can change it to their needs.

Well, we had really bad experience with sysctls in the past, in 
particular in the VM: with various settings exposed and distros 
'tuning' them - sometimes radically changing the way the system 
worked, confusing everyone involved.

So I'm in general opposed to sysctls for core kernel behavior - except 
for cases where we don't know better.

Instrumentation - especially instrumentation that should have been 
implemented mostly in user-space, like ftrace ;-) - is another special 
case that should stay as flexible as possible via sysctls, obviously.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/