Re: Rawhide and debug kernels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 12:04:41PM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
> For a *very* long time, Rawhide has built rcX kernels as "release"
> kernels and daily git snapshots as debug kernels only.  This has
> brought attention to some issues that might otherwise be missed.
> Specifically around things like lockdep.   Unfortunately, even without
> changing our selected debug options, performance has gotten
> considerably worse for these debug kernels due to upstream code
> changes.   At the same time, we do have some additional automated
> testing happening now that was not happening before, which we can
> explicitly point at debug kernels.   I am wondering if it is time to
> switch rawhide to work the way that everything else does, building
> both debug and nodebug builds every day, instead of forcing debug
> builds 80% of the time.  It would mean a reduction in coverage, but I
> am not sure by how much, as I get the impression that most rawhide
> users are sticking to the nodebug kernels anyway.   It would also
> allow us to turn on some more debug features for our debug kernels
> that are a bit more performance limiting, but extremely useful.  We
> have left them off in Fedora specifically because they were too heavy
> weight for expecting users to run them.
> 
> So, what does the community think? Should we continue as is, or should
> we move to a more typical model where both debug and non-debug kernels
> are build with every build?

If Rawhide is to maximise its usefulness as a distro you can actually
run tests on, then its functional behaviour and operation needs to be
on a par with the final released distro will have.  With the debug
kernels provided by default for most of the rawhide cycle, this goal
is not achievable today.

Having debug kernels available for testing is a good idea, and we
could encourage users to try them. I think it is undesirable to force
the debug builds onto every install by default though, because their
operational behaviour (mostly in terms of performance) is not a match
for what will actually be shipped.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux