From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Schwidefsky Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:31:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20111219133151.4d14af80@de.ibm.com> References: <20111219154010.c2044c038a6174dd8fb6f477@canb.auug.org.au> <20111219080813.GB30432@elte.hu> <20111219101134.3c2c0db5@de.ibm.com> <20111219103513.GA17928@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.114]:57168 "EHLO e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751866Ab1LSMcM (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:32:12 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:32:11 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111219103513.GA17928@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Glauber Costa On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:35:13 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100 > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > > > > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime > > > > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit > > > > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from > > > > the tip tree. > > > > > > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > > > > > > > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ... > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the > > > current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits > > > should go upstream via the scheduler tree. > > > > > > > All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and > > cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ? > > I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time > related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all > concentrated in a single tree? Ok, will do. Just one question: are you sure that you want the cpustat array to be u64 instead of cputime64_t? The content of the cpustat array is defined by the architecture semantics of cputime64_t, for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y this is not a jiffy counter. If the array is u64 we won't get the sparse checking when reading from cpustat. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.