From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:19:54 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EF0614A.9020402@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1324303723.24621.1.camel@twins>
On 12/19/2011 06:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 13:31 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So as Glauber said the reason was that we wanted to use simply
> operators, and IIRC he wanted to add a few fields that had to be u64.
>
> I'm not sure what the current plans are wrt adding more fields, but with
> your work cputime_t should again be a simple type and thus regular math
> operators should work again, right?
>
> Glauber, do you still need to add fields?
Due to the current state of discussions of cpu vs cpuacct, I think the
final state of this is quite unclear. However, I think Martin's work is
a quite worthwhile piece for us to have. So last case we can add extra
fields in a different array and tell them apart by the index, etc. It
shouldn't be expensive at all.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-20 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-19 4:40 linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree Stephen Rothwell
2011-12-19 8:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 9:11 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-12-19 10:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 11:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 14:24 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-12-19 16:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 19:06 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-12-20 11:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-19 12:31 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-12-19 13:43 ` Glauber Costa
2011-12-19 14:19 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-12-19 14:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-19 14:25 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-12-20 10:19 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-12-07 4:09 Stephen Rothwell
2011-12-07 11:35 ` Glauber Costa
2011-12-07 11:59 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2011-10-25 7:44 Stephen Rothwell
2011-10-25 7:40 Stephen Rothwell
2011-10-25 15:29 ` Michal Hocko
2011-10-25 7:35 Stephen Rothwell
2011-10-25 15:28 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EF0614A.9020402@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).