Re: 2.6.28-rc4-mmotm1110 - you gotta be kidding me...

From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Mon Nov 10 2008 - 23:59:18 EST


On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:37:13 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:55:37 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Somebody's been hitting the phunky pharmaceuticals in the last 4 days,
> > because this ball-of-joy snuck into linux-next.patch sometime between
> > -mmotm1106 and --mmotm1110.
> >
> > Seen in a 'make silentallconfig'
> >
> > Single-depth WCHAN output (SCHED_NO_NO_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER) [Y/n/?] (NEW) ?
> >
> > Calculate simpler /proc/<PID>/wchan values. If this option
> > is disabled then wchan values will recurse back to the
> > caller function. This provides more accurate wchan values,
> > at the expense of slightly more scheduling overhead.
>
> I got lost here.
>
> > If in doubt, say "Y".
> >
> > So if I say 'y', is that a request to disable it, or enable it? And
> > what exactly do I get if I vote *against* 'more accurate wchan values'?
> > Do I get everybody having the same wchan pointing somewhere in the
> > scheduler code, because that's where __builtin_return_address() points?
> >
> > And please - a triple negative in the Kconfig variable name? This has
> > gotta be a winner for poor taste in variable naming...
> >
>
> Even if that is all sorted out, how the heck is anyone to decide
> whether or not they need this thing?
>
> Also, if we really really are so wishy-washy indecisive that we need to
> make the function optional, it should if at all possible be made
> runtime-configurable, not compile-time.

This came from commit a87d091434ed2a34d647979ab12084139ee1fe41 ("x86,
sched: enable wchan config menu item on 64-bit"). We have had
CONFIG_SCHED_NO_NO_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER for some time on various
architectures, this commit just made it available on x86_64 (by changing
its dependency from X86_32 to X86).

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature