Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932369AbVKOEZ2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:25:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932370AbVKOEZ1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:25:27 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]:7870 "EHLO sccrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932369AbVKOEZ1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:25:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <43796596.2010908@watson.ibm.com> References: <43796596.2010908@watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <1F92A563-B430-49FE-895E-FB93DC64981E@comcast.net> Cc: linux-kernel Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Parag Warudkar Subject: Re: [Patch 1/4] Delay accounting: Initialization Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:25:24 -0500 To: Shailabh Nagar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1476 Lines: 40 On Nov 14, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Shailabh Nagar wrote: > +/* because of hardware timer drifts in SMPs and task continue on > different cpu > + * then where the start_ts was taken there is a possibility that > + * end_ts < start_ts by some usecs. In this case we ignore the diff > + * and add nothing to the total. Curious as to when would this occur. Probably for tasks running on a SMP machine for a very short period of time (timer drift should not be hopefully that high) and switching CPUs in that short period of time? > +config STATS_CONNECTOR > +config DELAY_ACCT Probably TASK_DELAY_STATS_CONNECTOR and TASK_DELAY_ACCOUNTING are better names? > @@ -813,6 +821,9 @@ struct task_struct { > int cpuset_mems_generation; > #endif > atomic_t fs_excl; /* holding fs exclusive resources */ > +#ifdef CONFIG_DELAY_ACCT > + struct task_delay_info delays; > +#endif > }; Does this mean, whether or not the per task delay accounting is used, we have a constant overhead of sizeof(spinlock_t) + 2*sizeof (uint32_t) + 2* sizeof(uint64_t) bytes going into the struct task_struct?. Is it possible/beneficial to use struct task_delay_info *delays instead and allocate it if task wants to use the information? Parag - 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/