Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:16:48 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0-test4 -- add context switch counters |
| |
Mike, your MUA sucks; you unwittingly removed yourself from Reply-To:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Command exited with non-zero status 100 > Command being timed: "apt-get update" > User time (seconds): 0.01 > System time (seconds): 0.00 > Percent of CPU this job got: 6% > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:00.32 > Average shared text size (kbytes): 0 > Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0 > Average stack size (kbytes): 0 > Average total size (kbytes): 0 > The averages might be nice...
The averages themselves aren't reported with getrusage(), only direct usage measurements. Presumably luserspace computes the averages itself. i.e. the counters are all for non-average versions of these stats and (because we're seeing all 0's) are not reported at all.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 0 > But the maximum would allow any polling app to do its polling less often. > As well as the averages above... > Average resident set size (kbytes): 0 > Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 320 > Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 21
The fault counters are vaguely bogus when threads are involved. There's a comment alluding to that nearby.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Voluntary context switches: 0 > How can you have voluntary context switches in a preemptive environment? > Involuntary context switches: 0
Irrelevant to CONFIG_PREEMPT; preemptive multitasking (i.e. userspace can be preempted) as UNIX has always done is the important issue here.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Swaps: 0 > Counting swaps would be nice too.
This already has two counters in the task_t (no, I will not use Finnish Hungarian notation in my general posts) that are 100% unused. Probably the only thing preventing slab poison from showing up there outright is the whole task_t copy in kernel/fork.c and the bss zeroing for init_task.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > File system inputs: 0 > File system outputs: 0 > Socket messages sent: 0 > Socket messages received: 0 > Signals delivered: 0 > Yes, yes, yes.
These would be easy to set up, they just need counters and the ticking of the counters dropped in.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Page size (bytes): 4096 > Exit status: 100 > One more thing: > $ cat /proc/meminfo > MemTotal: 320628 kB > MemFree: 5148 kB > Buffers: 8316 kB > Where'd shared go, and why didn't rmap start populating this value? It > should be there in the pte-chain lists...
Shared isn't particularly useful as a single value unqualified by sharing level.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:29:14PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > Cached: 127140 kB > SwapCached: 0 kB > Active: 266212 kB > Inactive: 10608 kB > HighTotal: 0 kB > HighFree: 0 kB > Why is high(total|free) there in a non-highmem kernel? If this file were > more dynamic, then we wouldn't have apps that counted on the line number > instead of the first colum's value... > Ok, so that was two more... ;)
They could probably very well be omitted; in all likelihood just making the format more resistant to .config changes to make luserspace's life easier is a good reason to keep it there.
-- wli - 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/
| |