* 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
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
> >
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
behavior. The
* 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 that
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
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:
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
On 10/5/07, Chuck Ebbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
patch reverting to 2.6.22 behavior
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
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: Chuck
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 instead of
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
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
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
On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
patch reverting to 2.6.22 behavior
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
Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2007 schrieb Chuck Ebbert:
On 10/04/2007 05:10 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
patch reverting to 2.6.22 behavior
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
