[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100929191916.21E1840038@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
John stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/10] taskstats: Fix exit CPU time accounting
> > I would consider it to be a BUG() that the time is not accounted.
> > Independent of the fact that a parent wants to see the SIGCHLD and
> > the exit status of its child the process time of the child should be
> > accounted, no?
>
> I do not know. It doesn't look like a BUG(), I mean it looks as if
> the code was intentionally written this way.
POSIX specifies this behavior: "If the child is never waited for (for
example, if the parent has SA_NOCLDWAIT set or sets SIGCHLD to SIG_IGN),
the resource information for the child process is discarded and not
included in the resource information provided by getrusage()."
Thanks,
Roland
--
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