Paper detail

The Sense of Logging in the Linux Kernel

Logging plays a crucial role in software engineering because it is key to perform various tasks including debugging, performance analysis, and detection of anomalies. Despite the importance of log data, the practice of logging still suffers from the lack of common guidelines and best practices. Recent studies investigated logging in C/C++ and Java open-source systems. In this paper, we complement these studies by conducting the first empirical study on logging practices in the Linux kernel, one of the most elaborate open-source development projects in the computer industry. We analyze 22 Linux releases with a focus on three main aspects: the pervasiveness of logging in Linux, the types of changes made to logging statements, and the rationale behind these changes. Our findings show that logging code accounts for 3.73% of the total source code in the Linux kernel, distributed across 72.36% of Linux files. We also found that the distribution of logging statements across Linux subsystems and their components vary significantly with no apparent reasons, suggesting that developers use different criteria when logging. In addition, we observed a slow decrease in the use of logging-reduction of 9.27% between versions v4.3 and v5.3. The majority of changes in logging code are made to fix language issues, modify log levels, and upgrade logging code to use new logging libraries, with the overall goal of improving the precision and consistency of the log output. Many recommendations are derived from our findings such as the use of static analysis tools to detect log-related issues, the adoption of common writing styles to improve the quality of log messages, the development of conventions to guide developers when selecting log levels, the establishment of review sessions to review logging code, and so on. [...]

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.