* Re: instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707011204580.32355@localhost.localdomain> @ 2007-07-02 8:54 ` Abhishek Sagar 2007-07-02 9:16 ` Robert P. J. Day 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Abhishek Sagar @ 2007-07-02 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, systemtap On 7/1/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > isn't kprobes mature enough to not be considered experimental anymore? That would vary from arch to arch. > in addition, while most of the KPROBES config options depend on > > KALLSYMS && EXPERIMENTAL && MODULES > > the s390 architecture depends only on > > EXPERIMENTAL && MODULES > > and its instrumentation support is *not* listed as experimental. > > also, the avr32 entry is in the file Kconfig.debug, and depends only > on DEBUG_KERNEL. just an observation. This probably stems from the episodic growth kprobes across different archs. It can be cleaned up I suppose. -- Abhishek Sagar P.S: Adding systemtap in CC. - > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? 2007-07-02 8:54 ` instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? Abhishek Sagar @ 2007-07-02 9:16 ` Robert P. J. Day 2007-07-02 9:56 ` Abhishek Sagar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-07-02 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhishek Sagar; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, systemtap On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Abhishek Sagar wrote: > On 7/1/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > > isn't kprobes mature enough to not be considered experimental anymore? > > That would vary from arch to arch. fair enough. however, at the very least, i'm thinking that the entire "Instrumentation support" submenu can be made non-EXPERIMENTAL, while individual entries therein can be EXPERIMENTAL on a choice-by-choice basis or something like that. anyway, others are welcome to play with that as they see fit. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? 2007-07-02 9:16 ` Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-07-02 9:56 ` Abhishek Sagar 2007-07-02 10:21 ` Robert P. J. Day 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Abhishek Sagar @ 2007-07-02 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, systemtap On 7/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Abhishek Sagar wrote: > > > On 7/1/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > isn't kprobes mature enough to not be considered experimental anymore? > > > > That would vary from arch to arch. > > fair enough. however, at the very least, i'm thinking that the entire > "Instrumentation support" submenu can be made non-EXPERIMENTAL, while > individual entries therein can be EXPERIMENTAL on a choice-by-choice > basis or something like that. There's not a lot in that menu. It holds oprofile on every arch I grepped on. Oprofile might come across as being marked non-experimental but that may very well be due to the assumption that the menu that holds that option will enforce the EXPERIMENTAL check. How many archs do you see where oprofile and kprobe defer on their dependency on EXPERIMENTAL? Removing the EXPERIMENTAL check from the instrumentation menu will also require you to fix/double-check dependency on EXPERIMENTAL of oprofile/kprobes, provided you know that for sure. Which would bring you back to the same question you began with, namely, whether option xyz is EXPERIMENTAL or not. -- Abhishek Sagar - > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? 2007-07-02 9:56 ` Abhishek Sagar @ 2007-07-02 10:21 ` Robert P. J. Day 2007-07-02 11:48 ` Abhishek Sagar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-07-02 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abhishek Sagar; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, systemtap On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Abhishek Sagar wrote: > On 7/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Abhishek Sagar wrote: > > > > > On 7/1/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > isn't kprobes mature enough to not be considered experimental anymore? > > > > > > That would vary from arch to arch. > > > > fair enough. however, at the very least, i'm thinking that the entire > > "Instrumentation support" submenu can be made non-EXPERIMENTAL, while > > individual entries therein can be EXPERIMENTAL on a choice-by-choice > > basis or something like that. > > There's not a lot in that menu. It holds oprofile on every arch I > grepped on. Oprofile might come across as being marked > non-experimental but that may very well be due to the assumption > that the menu that holds that option will enforce the EXPERIMENTAL > check. consider this random Kconfig file arch/x86_64/oprofile/Kconfig: ============================= config PROFILING bool "Profiling support (EXPERIMENTAL)" help Say Y here to enable the extended profiling support mechanisms used by profilers such as OProfile. config OPROFILE tristate "OProfile system profiling (EXPERIMENTAL)" depends on PROFILING help OProfile is a profiling system capable of profiling the whole system, include the kernel, kernel modules, libraries, and applications. If unsure, say N. ============================== the above is a bit silly. note that both prompts advertise themselves as "EXPERIMENTAL" even though neither of them has such a dependency. they *are*, however, part of an submenu that *is* dependent on EXPERIMENTAL (although you'd never know that just by looking at that Kconfig file). in short, it's just kind of ugly hackery at the moment. i made a suggestion a while back about having maturity levels like "EXPERIMENTAL" **automatically** added to the displayed prompts when you're doing a config -- that would go a long way to avoiding all this manual adding of a maturity level to Kconfig prompts, but that's a non-trivial change and is something the Kconfig folks would have to handle. my original point was simply that, based on its acceptance, it would seem kprobes has progressed beyond the EXPERIMENTAL phase, that's all. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? 2007-07-02 10:21 ` Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-07-02 11:48 ` Abhishek Sagar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Abhishek Sagar @ 2007-07-02 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, systemtap On 7/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > consider this random Kconfig file arch/x86_64/oprofile/Kconfig: > > ============================= > config PROFILING > bool "Profiling support (EXPERIMENTAL)" > help > Say Y here to enable the extended profiling support mechanisms used > by profilers such as OProfile. > > > config OPROFILE > tristate "OProfile system profiling (EXPERIMENTAL)" > depends on PROFILING > help > OProfile is a profiling system capable of profiling the > whole system, include the kernel, kernel modules, libraries, > and applications. > > If unsure, say N. > ============================== > > the above is a bit silly. note that both prompts advertise > themselves as "EXPERIMENTAL" even though neither of them has such a > dependency. they *are*, however, part of an submenu that *is* > dependent on EXPERIMENTAL (although you'd never know that just by > looking at that Kconfig file). in short, it's just kind of ugly > hackery at the moment. Yes but pushing the EXPERIMENTAL check to individual menu members shouldn't be done in a way which leads to an empty menu for any kernel configuration. I suspect that this is why the EXPERIMENTAL check is on the instrumentation menu in the first place. > my original point was simply that, based on its acceptance, it would > seem kprobes has progressed beyond the EXPERIMENTAL phase, that's all. It's worth a look on some archs. -- Abhishek Sagar - > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-02 11:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707011204580.32355@localhost.localdomain> 2007-07-02 8:54 ` instrumentation and kprobes really still "EXPERIMENTAL"? Abhishek Sagar 2007-07-02 9:16 ` Robert P. J. Day 2007-07-02 9:56 ` Abhishek Sagar 2007-07-02 10:21 ` Robert P. J. Day 2007-07-02 11:48 ` Abhishek Sagar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).