Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
* Gerrit Huizenga <[email protected]> wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_DELAY_ACCT
+int task_running_sys(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return task_is_running(p);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(task_running_sys);
+#endif
why is this function defined, and why is it exported?
The wrapping of the macro and export of the function was
to allow its use by a module (crbce).
this:
+#define task_is_running(p) (this_rq() == task_rq(p))
is totally bogus. What you are checking is not whether 'the task is
running', but it is a complex way of doing p->thread_info->cpu ==
smp_processor_id(). This, combined with:
+ if (pdata == NULL)
+ /* some wierdo race condition .. simply ignore */
+ continue;
+ if (thread->state == TASK_RUNNING) {
+ if (task_running_sys(thread)) {
+ atomic_inc((atomic_t *) &
+ (PSAMPLE(pdata)->cpu_running));
+ run++;
+ } else {
+ atomic_inc((atomic_t *) &
+ (PSAMPLE(pdata)->cpu_waiting));
+ wait++;
+ }
+ }
yields completely incorrect code, and bogus data. If your goal is to
sample executing-on-cpu vs. on-runqueue-waiting-to-run states then you
should use the already existing task_curr(p) call.
Thanks. task_curr is what we needed.
Would exporting task_curr be ok or should we continue to wrap in a
separate function ?
--Shailabh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
