[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090617122352.GA4611@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:23:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] wait_task_zombie: do not use thread_group_cputime()
On 06/17, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:26:51 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no reason for thread_group_cputime() in wait_task_zombie(),
> > there must be no other threads.
> >
> > This call was previously needed to collect the per-cpu data which
> > we do not have any longer.
>
> Is similar change for posix_cpu_timers_exit_group() correct and worthwhile ?
>
> void posix_cpu_timers_exit_group(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> - struct task_cputime cputime;
> + struct signal_struct *const sig = tsk->signal;
>
> - thread_group_cputimer(tsk, &cputime);
> cleanup_timers(tsk->signal->cpu_timers,
> - cputime.utime, cputime.stime, cputime.sum_exec_runtime);
> + cputime_add(tsk->utime, sig->utime),
> + cputime_add(tsk->stime, sig->stime),
> + tsk->se.sum_exec_runtime + sig->sum_sched_runtime);
> }
Yes, I think you are right.
And I think thread_group_cputimer() was never needed, it should be
thread_group_cputime(). Which in turn is not needed any longer too.
Please re-send with changelog/subject ?
Oleg.
--
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