> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:37:03 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I discovered it with this tracer. Then it brought me to
> > write this patch:
> >
> >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/31/184
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Still with these same observations, I wrote this another one:
> >
> >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/26/363
>
> OK, it's great that you're working to improve the workqueue code. But
> does this justify permanently adding debug code to the core workqueue
> code? In fact, because you've discovered these problem, the reasons
> for adding the debug code have lessened!
>
> What we need are curious developers looking into how well subsystems
> are performing and how well callers are using them. Adding fairly
> large amounts of permanent debug code into the core subsystems is a
> peculiar way of encouraging such activity.
>
> If a developer is motivated to improve (say) workqueues then they will
> write a bit of ad-hoc code, or poke at it with systemtap or will
> maintain a private ftrace patch - that's all pretty simple stuff for
> such people.
>
> So what is the remaining case for adding these patches? What I see is
>
> a) that their presence will entice people to run them and maybe find
> some problems and
>
> b) the workqueue-maintainer's task is lessened a bit by not having
> to forward-port his debugging patch.
>
> I dunno, it all seems a bit thin to me. Especially when you multiply
> it all by nr_core_subsystems?
