Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

kex: adding total_frags to kamcmd pkg.stats #575

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

kex: adding total_frags to kamcmd pkg.stats #575

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lbalaceanu
Copy link
Contributor

Created a patch for 4.1 which allows to display also the total number of pkg fragments upon calling kamcmd pkg.stats. This combines part of the master logic with existing 4.1 logic (for example this version does not combine the SREV_PKG_SET_USED, SREV_PKG_SET_REAL_USED, SREV_PKG_SET_FRAGS into one callback.)

Does this look ok? Feel free to close this if not needed.

@miconda
Copy link
Member

miconda commented Apr 20, 2016

Is this actually replacing the old way in 4.1 of returning total_frags (which was iterating through hash table slots) with the new way in more recent 4.x that keeps a dedicated field for this statistic and is faster?

4.1 is no longer in the focus for maintenance, no releases out of that branch. If people are still using 4.1 from git and this is a fix to the slow approach of getting the total_frags, I don't have anything against merging if nobody else finds issues with it.

@lbalaceanu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi Daniel,

You are right, this is meant to replace the iteration related to total_frags with the new field.

On a deeper analysis however, I see I have not fully taken in consideration (at least) the shm vs private memory distinction in relation to triggering the execution of sr_event SREV_PKG_SET_FRAGS in q/f_malloc.c (in master you introduced the qm->type==MEM_TYPE_PKG which allows you to change the position of sr_event_exec for SREV_PKG_UPDATE_STATS vs previous SREV_PKG_SET_USED )
This enhancement seems more complex than anticipated. I will close the pull request.

@lbalaceanu lbalaceanu closed this Apr 21, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants