[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317214418.24040.13.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:53:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...lmenage.org,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
jbottomley@...allels.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD 4/9] Make total_forks per-cgroup
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 14:42 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > That is, am I missing some added value of all this cputime*() foo?
>
> C can do the math as long as the encoding of the cputime is simple enough.
> Can we demand that a cputime value needs to be an integral type ?
I'd like to think we can ;-)
> What I did when I wrote all that stuff is to define cputime_t as a struct
> that contains a single u64. That way I found all the places in the kernel
> that used a cputime and could convert the code accordingly.
Indeed, that makes it a non-simple type and breaks all the C arith bits.
> My fear is that if the cputime_xxx operations are removed, code will
> sneak in again that just uses an unsigned long instead of a cputime_t.
> That would break any arch that requires something bigger than a u32 for
> its cputime.
Which is only a problem for 32bit archs, of which s390 is the only one
that matters, right? Hurm,. could we do something with sparse? Lots of
people run sparse.
--
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