From: Ciju Rajan K <ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.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>,
Ciju Rajan K <ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2.0]sched: Removing unused fields from /proc/schedstat
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:40:47 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D463647.7000106@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D3FBAD5.1070307@jp.fujitsu.com>
Hi Satoru,
>
> This patch is logically correct, succeeded to compile and works
> fine. But I came to be worried about whether it is good to kill
> all fields you said after reading old and upstream scheduler
> code again.
>
> 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.
>
sbe_* & sbf_* flags are added by the commit
68767a0ae428801649d510d9a65bb71feed44dd1 Git describe shows that it was
gone in to v2.6.12-1422-g68767a0 which is quite old. So in my opinion
this might not be a regression.
> # although I haven't been able to notice they are always zero ;-(
>
> I prefer not to remove these fields({sbe,sbf}_*) but to add
> accounting code for these flags again. What do you think?
I will go through the code and verify once again.
-Ciju
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-31 4:10 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 [this message]
2011-02-02 8:54 ` Ciju Rajan K
2011-02-03 9:19 ` Satoru Takeuchi
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=4D463647.7000106@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox