Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-26 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On 2/26/08, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008/2/25, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:12:47 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > It's statistic, yes, but it's a very important parameter for the > CPU-scheduler. > > > The CPU-s

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-26 Thread J.C. Pizarro
On 2008/2/25, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:12:47 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's statistic, yes, but it's a very important parameter for the > CPU-scheduler. > > The CPU-scheduler will know the number of context switches of each tas

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:12:47 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's statistic, yes, but it's a very important parameter for the > CPU-scheduler. > The CPU-scheduler will know the number of context switches of each task > before of to take a blind decision into infinitum!. We alr

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-24 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:12 +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > On 2008/2/24, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One reason: for the objective of gain interactivity, it's an issue that > > > CFS fair scheduler lacks it. > > > > A bug report would be a much better first step toward resolu

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-24 Thread J.C. Pizarro
Good morning :) On 2008/2/24, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, one last reply on the (overly optimistic?) assumption that you are not a > troll. > > +++ linux-2.6_git-20080224/include/linux/sched.h2008-02-24 > > 04:50:18.0 +0100 > > @@ -1007,6 +1007,12 @@ > >

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-23 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 05:08 +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > One reason: for the objective of gain interactivity, it's an issue that > CFS fair scheduler lacks it. A bug report would be a much better first step toward resolution of any interactivity issues you're seeing than posts which do nothing

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-23 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:08:46 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, one last reply on the (overly optimistic?) assumption that you are not a troll. > +++ linux-2.6_git-20080224/include/linux/sched.h2008-02-24 > 04:50:18.0 +0100 > @@ -1007,6 +1007,12 @@ > stru

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-23 Thread J.C. Pizarro
On 2008/2/24, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:08:38 +0100 > "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We will need 64 bit counters of the slow context switches, > > one counter for each new created task (e.g. u64 ctxt_switch_counts;) > > > Please send a p

Re: Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-23 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:08:38 +0100 "J.C. Pizarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We will need 64 bit counters of the slow context switches, > one counter for each new created task (e.g. u64 ctxt_switch_counts;) Please send a patch ... > I will explain your later why of it. ... and explain exact

Please, put 64-bit counter per task and incr.by.one each ctxt switch.

2008-02-23 Thread J.C. Pizarro
Hello, We will need 64 bit counters of the slow context switches, one counter for each new created task (e.g. u64 ctxt_switch_counts;) We will only need them during the lifetime of the tasks. To increment by +1 the task's 64 bit counter (it's fast) each one slow context switch. *kernel/sche