linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111219133151.4d14af80@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:31:51 +0100
From:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:35:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > > > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime
> > > > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit
> > > > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from
> > > > the tip tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > > > 
> > > > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ...
> > > 
> > > Agreed.
> > > 
> > > Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the 
> > > current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits 
> > > should go upstream via the scheduler tree.
> > > 
> > 
> > All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and 
> > cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ?
> 
> I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time 
> related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all 
> concentrated in a single tree?

Ok, will do. Just one question: are you sure that you want the cpustat array
to be u64 instead of cputime64_t? The content of the cpustat array is defined
by the architecture semantics of cputime64_t, for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
this is not a jiffy counter. If the array is u64 we won't get the sparse
checking when reading from cpustat.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

--
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/