[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090406091825.44F0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:21:34 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH for -mm] getrusage: fill ru_maxrss value
Hi
> I'm worrying particularly about the fork/exec issue you highlight.
> You're exemplary in providing your test programs, but there's a big
> omission: you don't mention that the first test, "./getrusage -lc",
> gives a very different result on Linux than you say it does on BSD -
> you say the BSD fork line is "fork: self 0 children 0", whereas
> I find my Linux fork line is "fork: self 102636 children 0".
FreeBSD update rusage at tick updating point. (I think all bsd do that)
Then, bsd displaing 0 is bsd's problem :)
Do I must change test program?
> So after that discrepancy, I can't tell what to expect. Not that
> I can make any sense of BSD's "self 0" there - I don't know how
> you could present 0 there if this is related to hiwater_rss.
>
> Now I'm seriously wondering if the ru_maxrss reported will generate
> more bugreports from people puzzled as to how it should behave,
> than help anyone in studying their process behaviour.
>
> Sorry to be so negative after all this time: I genuinely hope others
> will spring up to defend your patch and illustrate my stupidity.
--
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