Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:42:21 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] sard changes for 2.5.34 |
| |
Rick Lindsley wrote: > > OK, that's a start. I think there was some work done on making > kernel_stat percpu as well. > > Yes there's work on a couple of different fronts there. There is work > to specifically make disk stats per cpu (actually, I have some 2.4 > patches already I could port), and there is a more general interface > (statctr_t) which Dipankar Sarma (dipankar@in.ibm.com) is working on > for 2.5 for stat counters in general which generalizes the per-cpu > concept. > > Regardless of which route we go, can you suggest a good exercise to > demonstrate the advantage of per-cpu counters? It seems intuitive to > me, but I'm much more comfortable when I have numbers to back me up.
I don't think this is enough to justify a new subsystem like statctr_t (struct statctr, please).
Looks like we can take the disk stats out of kernel_stat, move all the vm-related things out of kernel_stat into struct page_state and what's left of kernel_stat?
unsigned int per_cpu_user[NR_CPUS], per_cpu_nice[NR_CPUS], per_cpu_system[NR_CPUS]; unsigned int irqs[NR_CPUS][NR_IRQS];
And that's good, because "kernel statistics" was clearly too broad a concept. The above is just one concept: interrupts and scheduler things.
I'll pull the VM accounting out of there; when you have a close-to-final patch for the disk stats we can give it a whizz in the -mm patches and then get all the userspace tools working nicely against that, OK?
I'm not sure that I want to add 14 more fields to /proc/meminfo. So a new /proc/vmstat may appear. We would then have:
/proc/stat scheduler things /proc/diskstat disk things /proc/vmstat vm things - 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/
| |