Re: [PATCH] - Reduce overhead of calc_load

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps nr_context_switches() and nr_iowait() should also go into this
> > function, then we rename it all to
> > 
> > 	struct sched_stuff {
> > 		unsigned nr_uninterruptible;
> > 		unsigned nr_running;
> > 		unsigned nr_active;
> > 		unsigned long nr_context_switches;
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	void get_sched_stuff(struct sched_stuff *);
> > 
> > and then convert all those random little counter-upper-callers we have.
> > 
> 
> Is there a need? Do they (except calc_load) use multiple values at
> the same time?

Don't know.  It might happen in the future.  And the additional cost is
practically zero.

> > And then give get_sched_stuff() a hotplug handler (probably unneeded) and
> 
> What would the hotplug handler do?

Move the stats from the going-away CPU into the current CPU's runqueue.

> > then scratch our heads over why nr_uninterruptible() iterates across all
> > possible CPUs while this new nr_active() iterates over all online CPUs like
> > nr_running() and unlike nr_context_switches().
> > 
> 
> I think it need only iterate over possible CPUs.

Someone who has four online CPUs, sixteen present CPUs and 128 possible
CPUs would be justifiably disappointed, no?

> > 
> > IOW: this code's an inefficient mess and needs some caring for.
> 
> What are the performance critical places that call the nr_blah() functions?
> 

That depends upon the frequency with which userspace reads /proc/loadavg,
/proc/stat or /proc/future-stuff.