Re: [PATCH] delay-accounting: Re-implement -c for getdelays.c toreport information on a target command
From: Balbir Singh
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 14:04:04 EST
On Wednesday 20 January 2010 12:22 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> That is an oversight and not intentional. I've not gotten around to
>> reimplementing the -c option due to lack for people asking for it.
> Consider this a request then. Man, I'd really like if someone
> implemented that -c switch thing :P
>>> This patch reimplements -c for getdelays.c to act as documented. Unlike the
>>> original version, it waits until the command completes before printing any
>>> information on it. An example of it being used looks like
>> Looks good, could you please keep the original sign-offs as well?
> Well, the reimplementation is significantly different to what was there
> so I'm not sure that's appropriate. Look at the differences yourself.
>>> $ ./getdelays -d -c find /home/mel -name mel
>>> print delayacct stats ON
>>> PID 5923
>>> CPU count real total virtual total delay total
>>> 42779 5051232096 5164722692 564207988
>>> IO count delay total
>>> 41727 97804147758
>>> SWAP count delay total
>>> 0 0
>>> RECLAIM count delay total
>>> 0 0
>>> It's not clear how or if this subsystem is being maintained. If the
>>> authors agree on it but do not pick it up for merging, I'll go bug
>>> Andrew with it.
>> I am maintaining it, please do let me know if you have an issue with the
>> subsystem or utilities.
> If you're happy with the patch then, can you pick it up, add your
> signed-off-by and go with whatever submission path you use for this
Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Andrew, could you please pick this up?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/