Re: [PATCH 4/4] per-task-delay-accounting: /proc export for memory reclaim delay

[Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>]

KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
> 
>> diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
>> index 9e3b8c3..a3e6e86 100644
>> --- a/fs/proc/array.c
>> +++ b/fs/proc/array.c
>> @@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>>
>>  	seq_printf(m, "%d (%s) %c %d %d %d %d %d %u %lu \
>>  %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d 0 %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu \
>> -%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %u %u %llu %lu %ld\n",
>> +%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %u %u %llu %llu %lu %ld\n",
>>  		pid_nr_ns(pid, ns),
>>  		tcomm,
>>  		state,
>> @@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ static int do_task_stat(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>>  		task->rt_priority,
>>  		task->policy,
>>  		(unsigned long long)delayacct_blkio_ticks(task),
>> +		(unsigned long long)delayacct_freepages_ticks(task),
>>  		cputime_to_clock_t(gtime),
>>  		cputime_to_clock_t(cgtime));
> 
> userland program oftern below access.
> thus, this patch break userland compatibility.

It's my fault. I suggested him to group delayacct ticks.
I know this breakage, but was not sure what it affects.
I thought that if it'll be a problem we get a claim such you did.

Thanks,
Hiroshi Shimamoto