Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757823AbZFKSfe (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753356AbZFKSf1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:27 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:45670 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752614AbZFKSf0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:34:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Martin Bligh cc: Christoph Hellwig , Peter Zijlstra , Al Viro , Ingo Molnar , "David S. Miller" , Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux In-Reply-To: <33307c790906111124m17e57332oc38c89fa70e39231@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20090611160329.GA3366@elte.hu> <20090611161714.GA5008@infradead.org> <20090611165226.GV8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1244739378.6691.540.camel@laptop> <20090611170015.GA3651@infradead.org> <33307c790906111124m17e57332oc38c89fa70e39231@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LFD 1184 2008-12-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2039 Lines: 49 On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Martin Bligh wrote: > > We actually ended up coming to the same conclusion as you for some of the > internal tools we use that are tightly tied to the kernel. There is one hitch, > which is that if you boot between different kernel versions, you need multiple > userspace versions of the tools, so you may need to put them in > /lib/modules/ or something equivalent, not one fixed place. So I actually think this is broken. No tool should ever be _that_ tightly tied to a kernel. If they are, they are broken, plain and simple. A stable user-space ABI is still a requirement. What the "keep it in the kernel sources" approach hopefully allows is - taking advantage of new features in a timely manner. NOT with some ABI breakage, but simply things like supporting a new CPU architecture or new counters. The thing that oprofile failed at so badly in my experience. - Make it easier for developers, and _avoiding_ the horrible situation where you have two different groups that don't talk well to each other because one is a group of user-space weenies, and the other is a group of manly kernel people, and there is no common ground. And no, I'm not going to "guarantee" that this works well. Again, I just know that the separation didn't work. Let's just _try_ to do it this way, and see how it works. But at no point will it be acceptable to have kernel version dependencies. Install the newest version of the binaries, and it should support older kernels too (within reason). The "within reason" is because (a) it's new, so early on you might see breakage, and (b) because we do tend to allow system tools to break occasionally. Not nearly often enough to make it valid to design around it, though. Linus -- 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/