From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:34:35 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 5/7] taskstats: Improve cumulative CPU time accounting Message-ID: <20101118163435.GA3249@redhat.com> References: <20101111170352.732381138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101111170815.404670062@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101113183810.GA9021@redhat.com> <1289928880.1940.116.camel@holzheu-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1289928880.1940.116.camel@holzheu-laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Michael Holzheu Cc: Shailabh Nagar , Andrew Morton , Venkatesh Pallipadi , Suresh Siddha , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , John stultz , Thomas Gleixner , Balbir Singh , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Roland McGrath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/16, Michael Holzheu wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 19:38 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I already asked you to split these changes, perhaps you can do this? > > Say, bacct_add_tsk() looks overcomplicated, the change in copy_process() > > shouldn't introduce the new CLONE_THREAD check, not sure I understand > > why release_task() was chosen for reparenting, other nits... > > I want to establish the new hierarchy when a new process is forked and > not for new threads, therefore the check for CLONE_THREAD in > copy_process(). Yes, but copy_process() already checks CLONE_THREAD many times. No need to introduce the new check. > I do the reparenting with reparent_acct() when a process > dies, therefore the check for "group_dead" in exit_signal(). And it is not clear to me why release_task() is better than exit_notify(). That said, perhaps I'll understand this reading the next version. That is why I asked to split. Oleg.