[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181108072402.smocqnczc2tjmjwz@linux-r8p5>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 23:24:02 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>, longman@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018, Dave Chinner wrote:
>If only we had percpu counters that had a fixed, extremely low read
>overhead that doesn't care about the number of CPUs in the
>machine....
>
>Oh, wait, we do: percpu_counters.[ch].
>
>This all seems like a counter implementation deficiency to me, not
>an interface problem...
Yeah fair point, as long as we can sacrifice accuracy by replacing
kernel_stat -- or maybe just replace the hard irq stats, which I
still think only accounts for 1% of all stat users. I have not looked
at how filesystems tune the batch size, but it would certainly be worth
looking into methinks.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists