----- Original Message ----- > > > > Now, your patch adds signficant complexity to the runq handling code > > and to its future maintainability. I'm wondering whether your patch > > can be modified such that the task_group info would only be displayed > > via a new flag, let's say "runq -g". It seems that there has been > > considerable churn in the kernel code in this area, and it worries me > > that this patch will potentially and unnecessarily cause the breakage > > of the simple display of the queued tasks. > > > > Currently, rt_rq is displayed hierarchically, while the cfs_rq is displayed > like that. So I made the first patch to make tasks in cfs_rq displayed > hierarchically so that we could see which task belongs to which cfs_rq > easily, just like rt_rq. > > The second patch is used to display tasks in throttled cfs_rqs/rt_rqs. > To display tasks in throttled cfs_rqs/rt_rqs is easy, but to display them > sorted in the current runqueue is kind of difficult, so the patch2 looks > complex. I think I will implement the patch2 by two ways, one is just the fix > version of the current patch2, the other is to use the new flag '-g'. > You can decide which one to apply. > > The attachment is the patch1. The latest patch1 seems to test OK, although your change to dump_task_runq_entry() that removes the leading spaces breaks the output format of "runq -d". But adding an INDENT(5) to dump_on_rq_tasks() fixes that. My suggestion re: a new -g flag would have it applicable to both CFS and RT run queues (even though the RT groups are currently being shown). I was thinking that it might be safest to have "runq" (with no argument) to just display a simple list of tasks, and only show group information with -g. Are you suggesting that -g would only apply to throttled cfs_rqs/rt_rqs? Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
