Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:40:56 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Skip Ford <skip@menantico.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable Message-ID: <20071024204056.GD33488@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20071024174531.GJ51310@menantico.com> References: <20071019232846.GQ31826@elvis.mu.org> <4719B06F.3000103@FreeBSD.org> <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org> <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org> <20071021124157.K70919@fledge.watson.org> <20071024174531.GJ51310@menantico.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Skip Ford <skip@menantico.com> [071024 10:47] wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > >>This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper > > >>for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and > > >>capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and > > >>related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there > > >>are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and > > >>make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING > > >>that the option and details have changed. > > > > > >I still get confused as to the meaning of this... > > > > > >It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. > > > > > >I think that is OK, right? > > > > As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING, > > I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the > > base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also. > > If -stable will have LOCK_PROFILING, it'd be really nice to have > it compatible with a standard world in some way, even if just with > a makefile hack that builds netstat_lp(1) in addition to > netstat(1) (and other utilities.) > > One can easily boot a diskless email, web, or name server into > kernels with other debug-type options without maintaining > multiple worlds. One might want to run a LOCK_PROFILING stable > kernel on a diskless email server for a period of time, but > that will require either a matching world, or putting up with > breakage for that period of time, neither of which is a fair > expectation in a stable environment, IMO. > > I can maintain local makefile hacks for production if somebody > with some makefile foo gets me started. This is really beyond the scope of what I have time for however I can say that probably all that is needed is a Makefile that uses something like a makefile in a directory next to netstat called netstat_lp and either duplicate the makefile and add: SRCDIR= ${.CURDIR}/netstat CFLAGS+= -DLOCKPROFILING or like make the netstat directory have a "Makefile.netstat.inc" in it with the common parts and have both Makefiles for netstat and netstat_lp include it. in fact you could hack netstat to exec netstat_lp if the sysctls indicating lockprofiling is enabled... ewwww. :) good luck! -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071024204056.GD33488>