[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517EF751.2050600@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:42:25 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding
clock
>> tick lost doesn't occur an issue. because glibc only test posix conformance and
>> posix allow inacculacy. In other words, timer must not run faster than real clock.
>> but lost and makes slower are accepted in the test.
>>
> What is lost isn't cputimer tick. They are accounted
> account_group_exec_runtime(). What is lost it is what is added to
> curr->sum_exec_runtime. Thus making the thread group clock running
> slower than the cputimer.
>
> Please spend some time reading the code and less time writing e-mails.
>
> Read the code of release_task() and where it is called in do_exit().
>
> Once it is done, it should be clear to you.
After several grepping, I may got your point. Guys, sig->sum_sched_runtime is gathered
in __exit_signal, not release_task() nor do_exit().
So, I'm now convinced your patch is correct. Even though the comments is terribuly misleading.
--
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