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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox