Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760413AbZANVhA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:37:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759455AbZANVgm (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:36:42 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46733 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751914AbZANVgk (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:36:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:35:29 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ghaskins@novell.com, matthew@wil.cx, andi@firstfloor.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, npiggin@suse.de, pmorreale@novell.com, SDietrich@novell.com, dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] adaptive spinning mutexes Message-Id: <20090114133529.317a346c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090114211458.GD6519@elte.hu> References: <1231867314.7141.16.camel@twins> <1231952436.14825.28.camel@laptop> <20090114183319.GA18630@elte.hu> <20090114105300.66bd014d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090114190008.GA13203@elte.hu> <20090114113638.c818fcf8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090114201435.GA6519@elte.hu> <20090114123017.9acf42d7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090114205122.GC6519@elte.hu> <20090114130642.cf2b18b2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090114211458.GD6519@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3037 Lines: 80 On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:14:58 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:51:22 +0100 > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do people enable CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG? > > > > > > > > > > If they suspect performance problems and want to analyze them? > > > > > > > > The vast majority of users do not and usually cannot compile their own > > > > kernels. > > > > > > ... which they derive from distro kernels or some old .config they always > > > used, via 'make oldconfig'. You are arguing against well-established facts > > > here. > > > > > > If you dont believe my word for it, here's an analysis of all kernel > > > configs posted to lkml in the past 8 months: > > > > > > $ grep ^CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG linux-kernel | wc -l > > > 424 > > > > > > $ grep 'CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is not' linux-kernel | wc -l > > > 109 > > > > > > i.e. CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y is set in 80% of the configs. A large majority > > > of testers has it enabled and /sys/debug/sched_features was always a good > > > mechanism that we used for runtime toggles. > > > > You just disproved your own case :( > > how so? 80% is not enough? No. It really depends on what distros do. > I also checked Fedora and it has SCHED_DEBUG=y > in its kernel rpms. If all distros set SCHED_DEBUG=y then fine. But if they do this then we should do this at the kernel.org level, and make it a hard-to-turn-off thing via CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y. > note that there's also a performance issue here: we generally _dont want_ > a debug sysctl overhead in the mutex code or in any fastpath for that > matter. So making it depend on SCHED_DEBUG is useful. > > sched_feat() features get optimized out at build time when SCHED_DEBUG is > disabled. So it gives us the best of two worlds: the utility of sysctls in > the SCHED_DEBUG=y, and they get compiled out in the !SCHED_DEBUG case. I'm not detecting here a sufficient appreciation of the number of sched-related regressions we've seen in recent years, nor of the difficulty encountered in diagnosing and fixing them. Let alone the difficulty getting those fixes propagated out a *long* time after the regression was added. You're taking a whizzy new feature which drastically changes a critical core kernel feature and jamming it into mainline with a vestigial amount of testing coverage without giving sufficient care and thought to the practical lessons which we have learned from doing this in the past. This is a highly risky change. It's not that the probability of failure is high - the problem is that the *cost* of the improbable failure is high. We should seek to minimize that cost. -- 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/