mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jay Lan <jlan@sgi.com>
To: balbir@in.ibm.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Shailabh Nagar <nagar@watson.ibm.com>, Jes Sorensen <jes@sgi.com>,
	Chris Sturtivant <csturtiv@sgi.com>, Tony Ernst <tee@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] add basic accounting fields to taskstats
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:51:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44CFCCE4.7060702@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44CF6433.50108@in.ibm.com>

Balbir Singh wrote:
> Jay Lan wrote:
> 
>>  
>> -#define TASKSTATS_VERSION    1
>> +#define TASKSTATS_VERSION    2
>> +#define TASK_COMM_LEN        16
>>  
> 
> 
> We should find a way to keep this in sync with with the definition
> in linux/sched.h (won't we a warning if both this header and
> linux/sched.h are included together?)

I do not know how to sync it up. This header linux/taskstats.h is
meant to be included by userspace programs. If an application
happens to include linux/sched.h, which includes linux/time.h,
the application will very likely have compilation errors because
the "struct timespec" declaration in <linux/time.h> and <time.h>
are conflicting.

The <linux/acct.h> defines it to
#define ACCT_COMM    16

I can change our define to TS_COMM_LEN with remakes saying it
should be in sync with the TAKS_COMM_LEN defined in linux/sched.h.

If there is a better way, i am eager to know it.

> 
> 
> 
>> + * fill in basic accounting fields
>> + */
>> +static void bacct_add_tsk(struct taskstats *stats, struct task_struct 
>> *tsk)
>> +{
>> +    u64    run_time;
>> +    struct timespec uptime;
>> +
>> +    /* calculate run_time in nsec */
>> +    do_posix_clock_monotonic_gettime(&uptime);
>> +    run_time = (u64)uptime.tv_sec*NSEC_PER_SEC + uptime.tv_nsec;
>> +    run_time -= (u64)current->group_leader->start_time.tv_sec * 
>> NSEC_PER_SEC
>> +            + current->group_leader->start_time.tv_nsec;
>> +    do_div(run_time, NSEC_PER_USEC);    /* rebase run_time to usec */
>> +    stats->ac_etime = run_time;
>> +    do_div(run_time, USEC_PER_SEC);        /* rebase run_time to sec */
>> +    stats->ac_btime = xtime.tv_sec - run_time;
>> +    if (thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
>> +        stats->ac_exitcode = tsk->exit_code;
>> +        if (tsk->flags & PF_FORKNOEXEC)
>> +            stats->ac_flag |= AFORK;
>> +    }
>> +    if (tsk->flags & PF_SUPERPRIV)
>> +        stats->ac_flag |= ASU;
>> +    if (tsk->flags & PF_DUMPCORE)
>> +        stats->ac_flag |= ACORE;
>> +    if (tsk->flags & PF_SIGNALED)
>> +        stats->ac_flag |= AXSIG;
>> +    stats->ac_nice    = task_nice(tsk);
>> +    stats->ac_sched    = tsk->policy;
>> +    stats->ac_uid    = tsk->uid;
>> +    stats->ac_gid    = tsk->gid;
>> +    stats->ac_pid    = tsk->pid;
>> +    stats->ac_ppid    = (tsk->parent) ? tsk->parent->pid : 0;
>> +    stats->ac_utime    = tsk->utime * USEC_PER_TICK;
>> +    stats->ac_stime    = tsk->stime * USEC_PER_TICK;
> 
> 
> I think you should use the portable cputime_xxxx() API since
> tsk->utime and tsk->stime are of type cputime_t

Will fix it.

> 
> 
>> +    /* Each process gets a minimum of a half tick cpu time */
>> +    if ((stats->ac_utime == 0) && (stats->ac_stime == 0)) {
>> +        stats->ac_stime = USEC_PER_TICK/2;
>> +    }
>> +
> 
> 
> This is confusing. Half tick does not make any sense from the
> scheduler view point (or am I missing something?), so why
> return half a tick to the user.

It must be inherited from old code dated back to Cray UNICOS.
I do not know if bad thing can happen if both utime and stime
are less than 1 usec...  I guess not. But i agree that
half a tick does not make sense. To play safe, we can change
it to 1 usec if both utime and stime are sub microsecond.
What do you think?

Thanks,
  - jay


> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2006-08-01 21:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-31 19:20 Jay Lan
2006-07-31 20:23 ` Shailabh Nagar
2006-07-31 21:50   ` Jay Lan
2006-08-01 14:24 ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-01 21:51   ` Jay Lan [this message]
2006-08-02 15:31     ` Shailabh Nagar
2006-08-02 17:17       ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-02 17:37         ` Shailabh Nagar
2006-08-02 21:09         ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-02 23:47           ` Jay Lan
2006-08-03  3:02           ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-07 21:23     ` Jay Lan
2006-08-08  5:22       ` Balbir Singh
2006-08-08 16:40         ` Jay Lan
2006-08-08 14:57 Al Boldi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=44CFCCE4.7060702@sgi.com \
    --to=jlan@sgi.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=balbir@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=csturtiv@sgi.com \
    --cc=jes@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nagar@watson.ibm.com \
    --cc=tee@sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome