> On July 1, 2013, 10:54 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/linux.hpp, lines 59-60 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/12215/diff/1/?file=314823#file314823line59> > > > > Would it make more sense to just return an error if the times are > > invalid? > > > > With the current logic it looks the callers of process() need to know > > that a Process could have invalid (-1) utime and stime and deal with it > > accordingly.
There are a few options, on OS X, we currently return -1 when we cannot obtain timing information so this mimics that behavior. I could alternatively return 0. The main issue with returning an error is that killtree and others want process information, regardless of whether the Process cpu times are available. One option is to make utime and stime with Try's, this enforces explicit handling of this Linux bug and the OS X issue. While also allowing those who are interested in pid, ppid, etc to still obtain the information. Thoughts? - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12215/#review22631 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 1, 2013, 10:45 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/12215/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 1, 2013, 10:45 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Brenden Matthews, and Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This was reported by Brenden Matthews on the mailing list. It appears that on > some Linux systems the utime / stime values coming from /proc are corrupt. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/linux.hpp > ef6c6c8f7839baaddcfd20249f2dbd25a7c3d25a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12215/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > Also ran the isolator tests with 100 iterations. > > > Thanks, > > Ben Mahler > >
