[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130611200600.GA15168@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:06:00 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tomas Janousek <tjanouse@...hat.com>,
Tomas Smetana <tsmetana@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] de_thread() should update ->real_start_time
On 06/11, John Stultz wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2013 10:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>> But perhaps this is fine and even more correct?
>
> So I think it probably *makes more sense* to include suspend_time in the
> elapsed runtime value being exported via bacct_add_tsk() and
> do_acct_process(), but I unfortunately worry now any such change would
> risk breaking userland expectations.
>
> The *actual* risk may be quite minor, so this could be one of those:
> "Let the tree fall and if no one is there to hear it, fine" interface
> breaks, but I'm not sure I'm eager enough to be the one proposing it. :)
Yes, same thoughts here ;)
Still it is ugly imho to keep task->start_time just for taskstats,
and _I think_ nobody really cares. Perhaps I'll try to send the patch
later...
And look. It seems that ->ac_btime (Process Creation Time) in
bacct_add_tsk() is obviously wrong anyway? So perhaps we can fix
this and in this case we can also change the meaning of start_time.
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