[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804060251.51635.balajirrao@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:51:51 +0530
From: Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>
To: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
menage@...gle.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, balbir@...ibm.com,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm] [1/2] Simple stats for cpu resource controller
On Sunday 06 April 2008 02:29:14 am Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 02:01:52AM +0530, Balaji Rao wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 April 2008 01:10:41 am Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct cpu_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> > > > + s64 count[CPU_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
> > >
> > > u64? time does not go negative :)
> > Right. But these stats are not only going to measure time. We need the
same
> > variables for measuring other stats as well. I'm not sure if we would
> > encounter scheduler stats that would count negative.
> >
> > Balbir, what do you say ?
>
> I would prefer to keep the stats logically separate. So something like
> struct cpu_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> u64 time[];
> s64 some_other_stat;
> }
> and so on. (I am not sure, is there some advantage gained by using
> structs?) Makes the code more maintainable imho.
>
This would break the generic nature of __cpu_cgroup_stat_add. Its not a nice
thing in my opinion.
--
regards,
Balaji Rao
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, India
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists