lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Tunable structure and registration routines
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:26:31 +0100 Nadia Derbey wrote:

> Randy,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the code!
> My comments embedded.
> I'll re-send the patches as soon as possible.

OK, thanks.


> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:15:17 +0100 Nadia.Derbey@bull.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[PATCH 01/06]
> >>
> <snip>
> >
> >
> >>+Any kernel subsystem that has registered a tunable should call
> >>+auto_tune_func() as follows:
> >>+
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Step | Routine to call |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Declaration phase | DEFINE_TUNABLE(name, values...); |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Initialization routine | set_tunable_min_max(name, min, max); |
> >>+| | set_autotuning_routine(name, routine); |
> >>+| | register_tunable(&name); |
> >>+| Note: the 1st 2 calls | |
> >>+| are optional | |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Alloc | activate_auto_tuning(AKT_UP, &name); |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Free | activate_auto_tuning(AKT_DOWN, &name); |
> >
> >
> > So does Free always use AKT_DOWN? why does it matter?
> > Seems unneeded and inconsistent.
>
> Tuning down is recommended in order to come back to the default tunable
> value.

Let me try to be clearer. What is Alloc? and why is AKT_UP
associated with Alloc and AFK_DOWN associated with Free (whatever
that means)?


> I agree with you: today it has quite no effect, except on the tunable
> value. If we take the ipc's example, grow_ary() just returns if the new
> tunable value happens to be lower than the previous one.
> But we can imagine, in the future, that grow_ary could deallocate the
> unused memory.
> + in that particular case, lowering the tunable value makes the 1st loop
> in ipc_addid() shorter.
>
> > How does one activate a tunable for downward adjustment?
>
> Actually a tunable is activated to be dynamically adjusted (whatever the
> direction).
> But you are giving me an idea for a future enhancement: we can imagine a
> tunable that could be allowed to increase only (or decrease only). In
> that case, we should move the autotune sysfs attribute into an 'up' and
> a 'down' attribute?

Couldn't the tunable owner just adjust the min value to a new
(larger) min value, e.g.?


> >>+extern void fork_late_init(void);
> >
> >
> > Looks like the wrong header file for that extern.
> >
> >
>
> Actually, I wanted the changes to the existing kernel files to be as
> small as possible. That's why everything is concentrated, whenever
> possible, in the added files.

I suppose that's OK for review, but it shouldn't be merged that way.

---
~Randy
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-25 17:41    [W:0.131 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site