From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Tomas Janousek <tjanouse@redhat.com>,
Tomas Smetana <tsmetana@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] de_thread() should update ->real_start_time
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:06:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130611200600.GA15168@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51B7690C.8090805@linaro.org>
On 06/11, John Stultz wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2013 10:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>> But perhaps this is fine and even more correct?
>
> So I think it probably *makes more sense* to include suspend_time in the
> elapsed runtime value being exported via bacct_add_tsk() and
> do_acct_process(), but I unfortunately worry now any such change would
> risk breaking userland expectations.
>
> The *actual* risk may be quite minor, so this could be one of those:
> "Let the tree fall and if no one is there to hear it, fine" interface
> breaks, but I'm not sure I'm eager enough to be the one proposing it. :)
Yes, same thoughts here ;)
Still it is ugly imho to keep task->start_time just for taskstats,
and _I think_ nobody really cares. Perhaps I'll try to send the patch
later...
And look. It seems that ->ac_btime (Process Creation Time) in
bacct_add_tsk() is obviously wrong anyway? So perhaps we can fix
this and in this case we can also change the meaning of start_time.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-11 20:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-10 18:33 [PATCH 0/3] de_thread() should update ->real_start_time Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-10 18:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] de_thread: mt-exec " Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-10 18:33 ` [PATCH 2/3] uptime_proc_show: use get_monotonic_boottime() Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-10 18:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] do_sysinfo: " Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-10 19:48 ` [PATCH 0/3] de_thread() should update ->real_start_time John Stultz
2013-06-11 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-11 18:14 ` John Stultz
2013-06-11 20:06 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-06-10 20:18 ` John Stultz
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=20130611200600.GA15168@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tjanouse@redhat.com \
--cc=tsmetana@redhat.com \
/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