From: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Ciju Rajan K <ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2.0]sched: Removing unused fields from /proc/schedstat
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:19:26 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D4A731E.5030401@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D491BE2.7010802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hi Ciju,
(2011/02/02 17:54), Ciju Rajan K wrote:
> Hi Satoru,
>
>
>>> I think we can remove rq->sched_switch and rq->sched_switch
>>> without no problem because they are meaningless. The former
>>> is for old O(1) scheduler and means the number of runqueue
>>> switching among active/expired queue. The latter is for
>>> SD_WAKE_BALANCE flag and its logic is already gone.
>>>
>>> However sbe_* are for SD_BALANCE_EXEC flag and sbf_* are for
>>> SD_BALANCE_FORK flag. Since both logic for them are still alive,
>>> the absence of these accounting is regression in my perspective.
>>> In addition, these fields would be useful for analyzing load
>>> balance behavior.
>>>
>
> The sbe_*& sbf_* counters were added by the commit
> 68767a0ae428801649d510d9a65bb71feed44dd1 But it was subsequently
> removed by the commit 476d139c218e44e045e4bc6d4cc02b010b343939
OK, I understood. It's OK if user tools referring /proc/schedstat
are released sync with this change.
I confirmed the following:
- This patch removes some unused schedstat fields and related
data.
- The kernel applying this patch works fine on my i386 box.
Tested-by: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Thanks,
Satoru
>
> [ciju@ciju kernel]$ git describe 68767a0ae428801649d510d9a65bb71feed44dd1 --contains
> v2.6.13-rc1~68^2~148
> [ciju@ciju kernel]$ git describe 476d139c218e44e045e4bc6d4cc02b010b343939 --contains
> v2.6.13-rc1~68^2~140
>
> So.. it was introduced and removed in 2.6.13 time frame
>
>
> When the counters were removed the sbe_* sbf_* variable
> declarations were not removed. Hence it caused a little confusion.
> So I believe these stats were not available and hence can't be
> considered as regression.
>
> 476d139c218e44e045e4bc6d4cc02b010b343939 consolidated the fork and
> exec balance. Thereafter it became non-trivial to provide separate
> stats for fork and exec events. So if people think a consolidated
> balance-on-event is needed, it can be looked into separately. But
> that shouldn't prevent this documentation cleanup patch from
> getting in.
>
> -Ciju
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-03 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-25 20:41 [RFC][PATCH 0/2 v2.0]sched: updating /proc/schedstat Ciju Rajan K
2011-01-25 20:45 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2.0]sched: Removing unused fields from /proc/schedstat Ciju Rajan K
2011-01-26 6:10 ` Satoru Takeuchi
2011-01-31 4:10 ` Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-02 8:54 ` Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-03 9:19 ` Satoru Takeuchi [this message]
2011-02-07 9:33 ` Ciju Rajan K
2011-01-25 20:46 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2.0]sched: Updating the sched-stat documentation Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-03 9:19 ` Satoru Takeuchi
2011-02-18 12:43 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/2 v3.0]sched: updating /proc/schedstat Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-18 12:46 ` [PATCH 1/2 v3.0]sched: Removing unused fields from /proc/schedstat Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-18 12:47 ` [PATCH 2/2 v3.0]sched: Updating the sched-stat documentation Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-22 8:38 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/2 v3.0]sched: updating /proc/schedstat Bharata B Rao
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=4D4A731E.5030401@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.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.