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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
