Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Linux Kernel Surpasses 10 Million Lines of Code

Posted by timothy on Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:32 PM
from the nice-round-figures dept.
javipas writes "A simple analysis of the most updated version (a Git checkout) of the Linux kernel reveals that the number of lines of all its source code surpasses 10 million, but attention: this number includes blank lines, comments, and text files. With a deeper analysis thanks to the SLOCCount tool, you can get the real number of pure code lines: 6.399.191, with 96.4% of them developed in C, and 3.3% using assembler. The number grows clearly with each new version of the kernel, that seems to be launched each 90 days approximately."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Isn't that normal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) * on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:34PM (#25471019)
    That the line count increases with each new version unless you are starting from scratch?

    --
    Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .
    • by jd (1658) <imipak@y3.14ahoo.com minus pi> on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:13PM (#25471721) Homepage Journal

      Yes, but it can go down with optimizations and refactoring (finding duplicated code and pushing it into a function or macro, for example) and with eliminating dead code. Ideally, code size should be asymptotic to an optimal size. As you approach the optimal size, more and more of what you need to do is already available to you. As you approach the limit, the amount of special-case logic and hardcoding approaches zero, and the amount of data-driven logic approaches 100%. Unfortunately, as you approach the limit, the performance must drop as you've now abstracted so far that your code becomes essentially a virtual machine on which your data runs. Simulating a computer is always going to be slower than actually using the real computer directly. In most cases, this is considered "acceptable" because your virtual machine is simply too advanced for any physical hardware to support at this time. (There is also the consideration of code changes, but as you approach the limit, your changes will largely be to the data and not to the codebase. At the limit, you will change the codebase only when changing the hardware, so if you could hardwire the code, it would not impact maintenance at all. All the maintenance you could want to do would be at the data level, given this level of abstraction.)

      Linux is clearly nowhere near the point of being that abstract, although some components are probably getting close. It would be interesting to see, even if it could only be done by simulation, what would happen if you moved Linux' VMM into an enlarged MMU, or what would happen if an intelligent hard drive supported Linux' current filesystem selection and parts of the VFS layer. Not as software running on a CPU, but as actual hard-wired logic. Software is just a simulation of wiring, so you can logically always reverse the process. Given that Linux has a decent chunk of the server market, and the server market is less concerned with cost as it is with high performance, high reliability and minimal physical space, it is possible (unlikely but possible) that there will eventually be lines of servers that use chips specially designed to accelerate Linux by this method.

  • by bubulubugoth (896803) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:34PM (#25471025) Homepage

    And how much of this lines are for core functions (Memory Managements, Scheduler, etc) and for drivers (USB, Filesystem)

  • Meh (Score:4, Funny)

    by alexborges (313924) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:35PM (#25471053)

    AND???

    In other news, trees tend to grow up unless they tend to grow down or sideways. Sharks tend to eat anything they can, unless they are not hungry.

    Anonymous will beat me to FP for sure, unless they dont.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)

      by V!NCENT (1105021) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:06PM (#25471595)

      Yeah so!? Cars are also getting bigger and more complex over time, so Linux must be heading in the right direction!

      Did I just... ? Oh sh-

      • "Actual" code? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TuringTest (533084) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:51PM (#25472295)

        Comments are also code.

        If you only count as code what can be feed to the machine, you should look at the size of the compiled binary. Source code is meant to be read by *humans*, so comments do count. That's why the GPL requires them to be left in the files (the "preferred form" to edit), otherwise it wouldn't be source code.

      • Re:Meh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dutch Gun (899105) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @04:28PM (#25474801)

        That reminds me of a story about my early programming attempts:

        My first computer was an Apple II+, and I learned AppleBASIC from a book that appeared to be written to teach kids how to program*. I was writing a graphical maze-crawler fantasy game (a bit like Wizardry, but much more primitive, of course). I knew nothing of data-driven programming, of course. Everything was hard-coded, every room a function, etc. AppleBASIC used line numbers, of course, and in laying out the dungeon, I started incrementing rooms by 1000 to make sure I had enough space.

        Sure enough, I ran into a strange issue when I tried to create a room at line number 66000. Through trial and error, I eventually determined that the maximum line number was 65535. I couldn't figure out why they would use such a crazy number as the maximum limit.

        Years later, when learning about the binary nature of computers, I saw that number again, and *click*. So, I'm not sure if 640K lines are enough, but 64K lines certainly were not for me!

        * If anyone remembers what the name of that book was, I'd be in your debt. I think it had a red cover, and it had great little illustrations of a robot that made it very kid-friendly. That book launched me on my current career path. I now program games for a living, and would love to find an old copy.

  • Stolen code (Score:5, Funny)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:35PM (#25471055) Homepage
    Too bad 9,999,999 lines of that code were ripped off from SCO.
  • assembler? (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:37PM (#25471077) Homepage Journal
    *cough*assembly*cough*

    "assembler" is the tool, not the language.
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:38PM (#25471121) Homepage Journal

    Because we'd all like to know how many man-months something a big as the linux kernel should take to implement. And laugh at the huge price tag sloccount will put on it.

  • by EraserMouseMan (847479) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:40PM (#25471153)
    I'm a developer and was wondering what kind of testing is done to verify the code. Do they use unit testing? Regression testing?

    I'm just curious because keeping 6+ million lines of code almost completely bug free is pretty amazing.
  • by linuxmeepster (1383107) * on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:43PM (#25471193) Homepage
    It's significantly easier to hide a malicious backdoor inside a huge software project than a small one. Linux has already had a near miss [theregister.co.uk] back in 2003, when the CVS repository was compromised. Considering how many mission-critical applications run under Linux, there's a huge financial incentive to hide a backdoor somewhere in those 10 million lines.
    • by Microlith (54737) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:08PM (#25471629)

      While Linux is huge, for a backdoor to be successful it would need to hit a huge number of systems. The majority of the kernel at this point tends to be drivers, not all of which are used in a given kernel.

      For it to be even remotely worthwhile, it'd have to be placed into something that was both heavily used AND given little attention. These two positions are almost mutually exclusive.

      Can anyone think of a place that would fall into these two categories? Even the more seemingly obscure parts of the kernel get attention fairly often and malicious changes wouldn't go unnoticed for long.

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:44PM (#25471199)
    Now, where do we find a birthday cake with ten million candles?
  • by damn_registrars (1103043) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:47PM (#25471235) Journal

    96,4% of them developed in C, and 3,3% using assembler

    That leaves .3% that is unaccounted for. What was it written in?

  • by apathy maybe (922212) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:47PM (#25471245) Homepage Journal

    May I suggest that large parts of this shouldn't be in the kernel at all? That there should be independent sub-systems so that in the event of a crash or panic, the entire OS doesn't come tumbling down?

    So that badly written drivers (especially graphic card drivers) don't affect the stability of the entire system?

    May I suggest that flame-wars are good and the EMACS is also bloated?

    (And lots of other folks have already talked about the bad metric that lines of code is...)

  • I Wonder? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheNecromancer (179644) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:56PM (#25471417)

    I wonder what the breakdown is of the almost 4 million lines that were omitted in the count, for blank lines, comments, etc.? I've always said that commenting your code is a very good thing to do, so it would be interesting to see what the percentage of this is comments, as opposed to blank lines (which isn't a bad thing for readability).

  • by qoncept (599709) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:01PM (#25471511) Homepage
    Funny that the summary calls attention to the fact that the number of lines includes comments and whitespace without any mention of how worthless lines of code is as a metric. Someone could easily go in and add or remove newlines wherever they wanted and without changed a bit of code make it 50 million or 50 thousand.
  • by hey! (33014) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:22PM (#25471847) Homepage Journal

    This article summary is not very informative. The very least they could do is tell us which ten million lines of code Linux has surpassed.

    • Re:Lines of Code (Score:5, Interesting)

      by theaveng (1243528) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:40PM (#25471145)

      I used to have GEOS on my Commodore 64. I have absolutely no idea how many lines of code it used, but it could squeeze itself into just 20 kilobytes of RAM, and yet had lots of functionality (as good as an 80s-era Mac). I consider "how much RAM occupied" to be a FAR more useful metric.

      I would love to see someone develop an OS that followed a similar philosophy of using as little RAM as possible.

    • by megamerican (1073936) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:41PM (#25471173)

      Exactly. The better metric would be how many Libraries of Congress the kernal is.

      • by djupedal (584558) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:53PM (#25471363)
        Since that many lines = approx. 125,000 pages, which = approx. 0.0175 terabytes, and... a LOC is approx. 18 TB, I'd say they have a ways to go...
      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:23PM (#25471853) Journal

        The better metric would be how many Libraries of Congress the kernal is.

        Perhaps better would be number of times the size of the Unix System 6 kernel.

        That's the one that the University of Waterloo printed as a textbook, half of a two book set. (The other book was the OS course text using it as the example.) They printed it at 50 lines per page column and added (lots of) whitespace and adjusted comments so routines fell on nice page boundaries. Even padded this way it came out to a total of ten thousand lines (of which I think 2 thousand were still in assembly code). Just right for one person to maintain full-time by the then-current rule-of-thumb.

        So the linux kernel is a thousand times the size of that (whitespace-padded) version of the Unix kernel.

    • by stephentyrone (664894) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @01:04PM (#25471555)

      I'm in a software engineering class listening to how to use metrics on code.

      No, you're in a software engineering class posting on Slashdot.

    • Re:Um (Score:5, Informative)

      by binarylarry (1338699) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @12:41PM (#25471163)

      Yeah but you can customize the Linux kernel. If you don't want features, just don't compile them in.

      It's easy, there's even a gui interface.

      Good luck compiling a custom NT kernel. :)

            • Re:Kernel Modules (Score:4, Informative)

              by mechsoph (716782) on Wednesday October 22 2008, @02:53PM (#25473263)

              not having to compile modules

              Uh, you don't compile modules. The distribution vendor does.

              actual real modularity on the binary level for true "modules"

              If you want a stable kernel module ABI, that only matters for binary-only modules (which are a bad idea). See vmware for how source-distributed modules can work fairly painlessly.

              meaning settings or whatnot that have to be compiled into the kernel, instead of being switches and modules that you can throw in and out of the kernel.

              What are you talking about?

              I don't think it's *all* modular,...as well as making it easier to swap stuff in and out.

              Most vendors compile generic kernels with just about all functionality put into kernel modules. What more do you want than modprobe, rmmod? Pretty buttons?

              so any increase in that helps by making the kernel easier to work on because you can have definite targets and functionality

              If you want a micro-kernel, go use QNX, hack on herd, or watch as Linux slowly steps in that direction. Maybe read some of the various flame wars on the topic and consider why herd hasn't made any significant progress in 15 years.

              In other words, actual driver modularity! So users can actually download and install drivers from off the intarwebz without having to compile them and Linux can actually, I dunno, be usable for 99% of users! Brilliant!

              Yeah...[/sarcasm]