[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] debugobjects: add a new Kconfig for POOL_SIZE

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Qian Cai wrote:
> >> As the results, systems have 60+ CPUs with both timer and workqueue
> >> objects enabled could trigger "ODEBUG: Out of memory. ODEBUG disabled".
> >>
> >> Hence, add a new Kconfig option so users could adjust ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE
> >> accordingly if either timer or workqueue objects are selected.
> >
> > why do we need a config option, when the required number can be deduced
> > already from the active CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_* and NR_CPUS?
> >
> It because I am worry about the coupling between the implementation details of
> timers and workqueue objects, and the computation in the code you mentioned
> here. For example, people could change workqueue.c to have different number
> of worekqueues initialized during the early boot in the future which is going to
> affect the required pool size, and I am not sure if people are going to adjust the
> code in debugobjects.c here as well when they made changes like that.
> Also, the computation could become so complex depends on lots of config
> options like perf, hrtimer, and combinations that I have not tested so far which is
> difficult to exhausted all the possibilities.
> Hence, I feel like the Kconfig option is more flexible and less error-prone.

Quite the contrary. Config options are a pain and truly error-prone if you
want to compile general purpose kernels as distributions do.

Its not really a problem to have a larger initial static pool which gets
freed after init anyway. So we can size it generously depending on the
config options and be done with it.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-19 09:10    [W:0.092 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site