[Devel] Re: Per container statistics (containerstats)

[Balbir Singh]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> I'd have hoped to see containerstats.c in here.
> 

The current statistics code is really small, so it fit into taskstats.c.
May be in the future, we could re-factor it and move it out.

>> +#ifndef _LINUX_CONTAINERSTATS_H
>> +#define _LINUX_CONTAINERSTATS_H
>> +
>> +#include <linux/taskstats.h>
> 
> I don't understand the relationship between containerstats and taskstats. 
> afacit it's using the same genetlink channel?
> 

I've registered containerstats_ops with the same family as taskstats to
reuse the taskstats interface.

>> +enum {
>> +	CONTAINERSTATS_CMD_UNSPEC = __TASKSTATS_CMD_MAX,	/* Reserved */
> 
> This seems to mean that the containerstats commands all get renumbered if
> we add new taskstats commands.  That would be bad?
> 

As per comment above, since we register containerstats_ops with the taskstats
family, the commands need to be unique, hence we start where taskstats ended
(left off)

>> + */
>> +int containerstats_build(struct containerstats *stats, struct dentry *dentry)
>> +{
>> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
>> +	struct task_struct *g, *p;
>> +	struct container *cont, *root_cont;
>> +	struct container *src_cont;
>> +	int subsys_id;
>> +	struct containerfs_root *root;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Validate dentry by checking the superblock operations
>> +	 */
>> +	if (dentry->d_sb->s_op != &container_ops)
>> +		 goto err;
>> +
>> +	ret = 0;
>> +	src_cont = (struct container *)dentry->d_fsdata;
> 
> Unneeded cast.
> 

Will remove

>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>> +
>> +	for_each_root(root) {
>> +		if (!root->subsys_bits)
>> +			continue;
>> +		root_cont = &root->top_container;
>> +		get_first_subsys(root_cont, NULL, &subsys_id);
>> +		do_each_thread(g, p) {
> 
> this needs tasklist_lock?
> 

rcu_read_lock() should be fine. From Eric's patch at

2.6.17-mm2 - proc-remove-tasklist_lock-from-proc_pid_readdir.patch

The patch mentions that "We don't need the tasklist_lock to safely
iterate through processes anymore."

>> +			cont = task_container(p, subsys_id);
>> +			if (cont == src_cont) {
>> +				switch (p->state) {
>> +				case TASK_RUNNING:
>> +					stats->nr_running++;
>> +					break;
>> +				case TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE:
>> +					stats->nr_sleeping++;
>> +					break;
>> +				case TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE:
>> +					stats->nr_uninterruptible++;
>> +					break;
>> +				case TASK_STOPPED:
>> +					stats->nr_stopped++;
>> +					break;
>> +				default:
>> +					if (delayacct_is_task_waiting_on_io(p))
>> +						stats->nr_io_wait++;
>> +					break;
>> +				}
>> +			}
>> +		} while_each_thread(g, p);
>> +	}
>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>> +err:
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int cmppid(const void *a, const void *b)
>>  {
>>  	return *(pid_t *)a - *(pid_t *)b;
>> diff -puN kernel/sched.c~containers-taskstats kernel/sched.c
>> --- linux-2.6.22-rc2-mm1/kernel/sched.c~containers-taskstats	2007-06-05 17:21:57.000000000 +0530
>> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc2-mm1-balbir/kernel/sched.c	2007-06-05 17:21:57.000000000 +0530
>> @@ -4280,11 +4280,13 @@ void __sched io_schedule(void)
>>  {
>>  	struct rq *rq = &__raw_get_cpu_var(runqueues);
>>  
>> +	delayacct_set_flag(DELAYACCT_PF_BLKIO);
>>  	delayacct_blkio_start();
> 
> Would it be suitable and appropriate to embed the delayacct_set_flag() call
> inside delayacct_blkio_start()?
> 

Yes, I should have done that, will do.


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL