[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 ( 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],
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.074 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site