Jack Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +unsigned long nr_active(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long i, running = 0, uninterruptible = 0;
> +
> + for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> + running += cpu_rq(i)->nr_running;
> + uninterruptible += cpu_rq(i)->nr_uninterruptible;
> + }
> +
> + if (unlikely((long)uninterruptible < 0))
> + uninterruptible = 0;
> +
> + return running + uninterruptible;
> +}
Is that check for (uninterruptible < 0) (copied from nr_uninterruptible)
really needed? Can rq->nr_uninterruptible actually go negative?
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.
And then give get_sched_stuff() a hotplug handler (probably unneeded) and
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().
IOW: this code's an inefficient mess and needs some caring for.
-
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]
