[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cadbb09620a0d64c1bb3a24ce852c44d.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:25:22 +0900 (JST)
From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Dhaval Giani" <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Ken Chen" <kenchen@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@...e.hu,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] change cpuacct usage percpu format v2
Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 09:42:17AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> BTW, current interface to reset cpuacct (write ops) just reset
>> specified level of cpuacct and will not clear other hierarchical levels.
>> Doesn't this behavior confuse software ?
>>
>
> hmmm. This got missed when we introduced hierarchy. But I wonder if it
> is needed?
>
IIUC, cpuacct.usage just shows sum of itself and all children's usage and
its own usage can be calclated by reading all usage of hierarchy.
So, reset ops seems to be a bit broken.
And by this, parent's usage can be smaller than children.
How about adding limitation as "you can clear usage only when there are no
children" ? Maybe not very strange limitaton under hierarchical system.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists