Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750772AbWEIRa5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2006 13:30:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750775AbWEIRa4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2006 13:30:56 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:35509 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750771AbWEIRaz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2006 13:30:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:57:16 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, jlan@engr.sgi.com Subject: Re: [Patch 2/8] Sync block I/O and swapin delay collection Message-ID: <20060509172716.GB10478@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@in.ibm.com References: <20060502061408.GM13962@in.ibm.com> <20060508141952.2d4b9069.akpm@osdl.org> <20060509035320.GC784@in.ibm.com> <44601933.2040905@yahoo.com.au> <20060509054556.GG784@in.ibm.com> <44602F32.1060909@yahoo.com.au> <20060509080638.GB11533@in.ibm.com> <446050BC.5070608@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <446050BC.5070608@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2195 Lines: 61 On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:20:12PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Balbir Singh wrote: > > >On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:57:06PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > >>Well they'll be _collecting_ the stats, yes. Will they really be using > >>them for anything? > >> > > > >Hmm.. No, the statistics are sent down using the netlink interface > >to listeners on the netlink group (on every task exit) or to the task that > >actually requested for the delay accounting data. > > > >The stats are currently gathered in kernel and used by user space. > > > > So... what are the consumers of this data going to be? That is my question. More details on the consumers of this data is available at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/3/13/367 > > >>If you make the whole thing much lighter weight for tasks which aren't > >>using the accounting, you have a better chance of people turning the > >>CONFIG option on. > >> > >> > > > >I am not sure I understand the point completely. Are you suggesting that > >struct task_delay_info be moved to common data structure as an aggregate > >containing all the delay stats data? > > > > My suggestion is basically this: if the accounting is going to be used > infrequently, it might be a good idea to allocate the accounting structures > on demand, and only perform the accounting when these structures are > allocated. > > It all adds up. Extra cache misses, more icache, more logic, etc... I > suspect > that relatively few people will care about these stats. > Thanks for clarifying. I now understand your suggestion better. The accounting is going to be frequent, with data from all tasks in the system being collected and processed frequently. Since the accounting is frequent, I think the current scheme works better than on-demand allocation. Regarding the usefulness of these stats, please see http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0604.2/1731.html Balbir Singh, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs - 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/