Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rcu-scale: change rcu-scale report. | From | "Han, Jiangong" <> | Date | Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:48:30 +0800 |
| |
Sorry, my the comment is wrong, and the correct comment should be like below, and I had modify this, and I had resend one more applying review patch email for this.
Thanks for you time.
Br,
Jiangong.
---------------------------------- rcu-scale: rcu-scale returns one less than the real number of gps in the dmesg report.
The dmesg report on rcu-scale shows there are N grace periods, and gps are listed from 0 to N. This commit make writer_n_durations stores the counts of gps, and shows there are N+1 gps, change the listed gps index begin from 0 to N.
From [ 8306.087880] rcu-scale: writer 0 gps: 133 ...... [ 8307.864630] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 0 44003961 [ 8307.935711] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 1 32003582 ...... [ 8316.472860] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 132 28004391 [ 8316.538498] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 133 27996410
to [ 8306.087880] rcu-scale: writer 0 gps: 134 ...... [ 8307.864630] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 0 44003961 [ 8307.935711] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 1 32003582 ...... [ 8316.472860] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 132 28004391 [ 8316.538498] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 133 27996410
----------------------------------
2021/6/10 上午4:37, Paul E. McKenney 写道: > [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address] > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 03:00:19PM +0800, Jiangong.Han wrote: >> The report on rcu-scale shows there are N grace periods, and gps >> are listed from 0 to N-1. >> This commit make writer_n_durations stores the counts of gps, >> change the listed gps index begin from 1 to N. >> >> From >> [ 8306.087880] rcu-scale: writer 0 gps: 133 >> ...... >> [ 8307.864630] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 0 44003961 >> [ 8307.935711] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 1 32003582 >> ...... >> [ 8316.472860] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 131 28004391 >> [ 8316.538498] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 132 27996410 >> >> to >> [ 8306.087880] rcu-scale: writer 0 gps: 133 >> ...... >> [ 8307.864630] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 1 44003961 >> [ 8307.935711] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 2 32003582 >> ...... >> [ 8316.472860] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 132 28004391 >> [ 8316.538498] rcu-scale: 0 writer-duration: 133 27996410 >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiangong.Han <jiangong.han@windriver.com> > You lost me on this one. Why is this helpful? And how does the change > shown below actually result in the output shown above, given that > rcu_scale_cleanup() still starts j at zero? > > Thanx, Paul > >> --- >> kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c >> index dca51fe9c73f..2cc34a22a506 100644 >> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c >> @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ rcu_scale_writer(void *arg) >> if (gp_async) { >> cur_ops->gp_barrier(); >> } >> - writer_n_durations[me] = i_max; >> + writer_n_durations[me] = i_max + 1; >> torture_kthread_stopping("rcu_scale_writer"); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ rcu_scale_cleanup(void) >> wdpp = writer_durations[i]; >> if (!wdpp) >> continue; >> - for (j = 0; j <= writer_n_durations[i]; j++) { >> + for (j = 0; j < writer_n_durations[i]; j++) { >> wdp = &wdpp[j]; >> pr_alert("%s%s %4d writer-duration: %5d %llu\n", >> scale_type, SCALE_FLAG, >> -- >> 2.17.1 >>
| |