On Saturday 03 May 2008 01:23:04 am Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 3 May 2008 01:10:28 +0530 > > Balaji Rao <balajirrao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Friday 02 May 2008 02:30:26 am Andrew Morton wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > Did you consider using include/linux/percpu_counter.h? > > > > > > If so, what was wrong with it? > > > > > > Because it would be much better to fix per-cpu counters than to invent > > > new stuff. > > > > No, I hadn't consider using the percpu_counters infrastructure. But today > > when I tried using it, I got an early exception.I guess its because I > > tried calling percpu_counter_init from within sched_init, which I perhaps > > shouldn't do, because percpu_counter_init expects cpu hotplug code to be > > initialized by then. Right ? Correct me if I'm wrong. > > I don't see any reason why we cannot run percpu_counter_init() prior to > running percpu_counter_startup(). And it is desirable that we be able to > start using the percpu-counters quite early. > > Can you debug it a bit please? It's probably some silly little thing, > perhaps fixable by calling percpu_counter_startup() earlier. > percpu_counter_init uses kmalloc to create percpu counters. This raises an early exception as kmem_cache is not initialized that early. It worked for me if we statically allocate memory for the counters. But its not at all a nice thing to do and I don't see another way to make it fit for early use. I'm beginning to run out of ideas! Why not do what I earlier suggested - begin collecting statistics once we are able to safely use percpu_counters ? This now seems to be the best alternative IMHO. -- Warm Regards, Balaji Rao Dept. of Mechanical Engineering NITK _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
