Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 00/01] Move Exit Connectors

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Matt> 	Right. I forgot to repeat what I mentioned in the parent email
Matt> -- that this patch is intended to be applied on top of
Matt> Shailabh's patches.

Matt> 	The first patch I posted (01/01) is intended for plain
Matt> 2.6.15. Before proposing 01/01 for -mm I've been trying to see
Matt> if there are any problems with the value of tsk->exit_signal
Matt> before exit_mm() -- hence the "[RFC]" in the subject line of
Matt> that one.

Matt,

Any chance one of you could put up a set of current patches somewhere?
I am trying to make heads and tails of them and it's pretty hard as I
haven't been on lse-tech for long and the lse-tech mailing list
archives are useless due to the 99 to 1 SPAM ratio ;-(

I am quite concerned about that lock your patches put into struct
task_struct through struct task_delay_info. Have you done any
measurements on how this impacts performance on highly threaded apps
on larger system?

IMHO it seems to make more sense to use something like Jack's proposed
task_notifier code to lock-less collect the data into task local data
structures and then take the data from there and ship off to userland
through netlink or similar like you are doing?

I am working on modifying Jack's patch to carry task local data and
use it for not just accounting but other areas that need optional
callbacks (optional in the sense that it's a feature that can be
enabled or disabled). Looking at Shailabh's delayacct_blkio() changes
it seems that it would be really easy to fit those into that
framework.

Guess I should post some of this code .....

Cheers,
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/