From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cputime tree Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:28:00 +0100 Message-ID: <1227608880.4259.1451.camel@twins> References: <20081125202105.2e80cf92.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1227607612.4259.1428.camel@twins> <1227608128.30264.2.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:45325 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752478AbYKYK2J (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:28:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1227608128.30264.2.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:15 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 20:21 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the cputime tree got a conflict in > > > kernel/sched.c between commit 74fcd524e808975dd546dac847119f1995a7c622 > > > ("account_steal_time: kill the unneeded account_group_system_time()") > > > from the tip-core tree and commit > > > b7f4776b7f575ed8f288c44b64befd241fd44458 ("[PATCH] idle cputime > > > accounting") from the cputime tree. > > > > > > The latter removes the call to account_group_system_time() as a side > > > effect of further changes. So the fixup is to just take the latter > > > change. I can carry the merge fix. > > > > Why does s390 do its own cpu accounting? > > Is that a trick question? I invented the cputime accounting specifically > for s390 because it is a virtual architecture and the standard cpu > accounting numbers are just useless. Nah, just general ignorance brought on by the mondays on a tuesday ;-) Right, makes sense, is it shared with all other virt* folks out there?