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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:30 EST