From: Jay Lan <jlan@sgi.com>
To: balbir@in.ibm.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com>, Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>,
Chris Sturtivant <csturtiv@sgi.com>, Tony Ernst <tee@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] add basic accounting fields to taskstats
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:51:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44CFCCE4.7060702@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44CF6433.50108@in.ibm.com>
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Jay Lan wrote:
>
>>
>> -#define TASKSTATS_VERSION 1
>> +#define TASKSTATS_VERSION 2
>> +#define TASK_COMM_LEN 16
>>
>
>
> We should find a way to keep this in sync with with the definition
> in linux/sched.h (won't we a warning if both this header and
> linux/sched.h are included together?)
I do not know how to sync it up. This header linux/taskstats.h is
meant to be included by userspace programs. If an application
happens to include linux/sched.h, which includes linux/time.h,
the application will very likely have compilation errors because
the "struct timespec" declaration in <linux/time.h> and <time.h>
are conflicting.
The <linux/acct.h> defines it to
#define ACCT_COMM 16
I can change our define to TS_COMM_LEN with remakes saying it
should be in sync with the TAKS_COMM_LEN defined in linux/sched.h.
If there is a better way, i am eager to know it.
>
>
>
>> + * fill in basic accounting fields
>> + */
>> +static void bacct_add_tsk(struct taskstats *stats, struct task_struct
>> *tsk)
>> +{
>> + u64 run_time;
>> + struct timespec uptime;
>> +
>> + /* calculate run_time in nsec */
>> + do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&uptime);
>> + run_time = (u64)uptime.tv_sec*NSEC_PER_SEC + uptime.tv_nsec;
>> + run_time -= (u64)current->group_leader->start_time.tv_sec *
>> NSEC_PER_SEC
>> + + current->group_leader->start_time.tv_nsec;
>> + do_div(run_time, NSEC_PER_USEC); /* rebase run_time to usec */
>> + stats->ac_etime = run_time;
>> + do_div(run_time, USEC_PER_SEC); /* rebase run_time to sec */
>> + stats->ac_btime = xtime.tv_sec - run_time;
>> + if (thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
>> + stats->ac_exitcode = tsk->exit_code;
>> + if (tsk->flags & PF_FORKNOEXEC)
>> + stats->ac_flag |= AFORK;
>> + }
>> + if (tsk->flags & PF_SUPERPRIV)
>> + stats->ac_flag |= ASU;
>> + if (tsk->flags & PF_DUMPCORE)
>> + stats->ac_flag |= ACORE;
>> + if (tsk->flags & PF_SIGNALED)
>> + stats->ac_flag |= AXSIG;
>> + stats->ac_nice = task_nice(tsk);
>> + stats->ac_sched = tsk->policy;
>> + stats->ac_uid = tsk->uid;
>> + stats->ac_gid = tsk->gid;
>> + stats->ac_pid = tsk->pid;
>> + stats->ac_ppid = (tsk->parent) ? tsk->parent->pid : 0;
>> + stats->ac_utime = tsk->utime * USEC_PER_TICK;
>> + stats->ac_stime = tsk->stime * USEC_PER_TICK;
>
>
> I think you should use the portable cputime_xxxx() API since
> tsk->utime and tsk->stime are of type cputime_t
Will fix it.
>
>
>> + /* Each process gets a minimum of a half tick cpu time */
>> + if ((stats->ac_utime == 0) && (stats->ac_stime == 0)) {
>> + stats->ac_stime = USEC_PER_TICK/2;
>> + }
>> +
>
>
> This is confusing. Half tick does not make any sense from the
> scheduler view point (or am I missing something?), so why
> return half a tick to the user.
It must be inherited from old code dated back to Cray UNICOS.
I do not know if bad thing can happen if both utime and stime
are less than 1 usec... I guess not. But i agree that
half a tick does not make sense. To play safe, we can change
it to 1 usec if both utime and stime are sub microsecond.
What do you think?
Thanks,
- jay
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-01 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-31 19:20 [patch 1/3] add basic accounting fields to taskstats Jay Lan
2006-07-31 20:23 ` Shailabh Nagar
2006-07-31 21:50 ` Jay Lan
2006-08-01 14:24 ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-01 21:51 ` Jay Lan [this message]
2006-08-02 15:31 ` Shailabh Nagar
2006-08-02 17:17 ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-02 17:37 ` Shailabh Nagar
2006-08-02 21:09 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-02 23:47 ` Jay Lan
2006-08-03 3:02 ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-07 21:23 ` Jay Lan
2006-08-08 5:22 ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-08 16:40 ` Jay Lan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-08-08 14:57 Al Boldi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44CFCCE4.7060702@sgi.com \
--to=jlan@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=balbir@in.ibm.com \
--cc=csturtiv@sgi.com \
--cc=jes@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nagar@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=tee@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.