* Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does it still shows numbers going backwards? I guess the sampled
> values for stime and utime change in flight between task_utime and
> task_stime are called. Lets say utime will be increased. Given the
> same sum_exec_runtime that means
Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2007 schrieb Frans Pop:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007, you wrote:
> > Frans can you test this patch if this makes stime and utime monotic
> > again?
> >
> > It basically reverts the rest of
> > b27f03d4bdc145a09fb7b0c0e004b29f1ee555fa and should restore the 2.6.22
> > behavi
On Thursday 04 October 2007, you wrote:
> Frans can you test this patch if this makes stime and utime monotic
> again?
>
> It basically reverts the rest of
> b27f03d4bdc145a09fb7b0c0e004b29f1ee555fa and should restore the 2.6.22
> behavior. The process time is used from tasks utime and stime inste
On Friday 05 October 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> procfs: Don't read runtime twice when computing task's stime
>
> Current code reads p->se.sum_exec_runtime twice and goes through
> multiple type conversions to calculate stime. Read it once and
> skip some of the conversions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuc
On 10/5/07, Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> >
>
> Alternative patch:
>
> procfs: Don't read runtime twice when computing task's stime
>
> Current code reads p->se.sum_exec_runtime twice and goes through
> multiple type conversions
Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2007 schrieb Chuck Ebbert:
> On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> >
>
> Alternative patch:
>
> procfs: Don't read runtime twice when computing task's stime
>
> Current code reads p->se.sum_exec_runtime twice and goes through
> multiple type conversion
On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
Alternative patch:
procfs: Don't read runtime twice when computing task's stime
Current code reads p->se.sum_exec_runtime twice and goes through
multiple type conversions to calculate stime. Read it once and
skip some of the conversions.
Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 schrieb Chuck Ebbert:
> On 10/04/2007 04:00 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 schrieb Chuck Ebbert:
> >> Is CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING set?
> >
> > This is s390 and powerpc only, so the answer is probably no ;-)
> >
>
> The code in
8 matches
Mail list logo
