On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:32:50PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > 2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >> I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
> > >> this
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:32:50PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka sgrus...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
> >> this kind of check. The kernel perhaps doesn't give guarantee about
> >>
* Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka sgrus...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
this kind of check. The kernel perhaps doesn't give
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 03:47:19PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
> >> this kind of check. The kernel perhaps
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 03:47:19PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka sgrus...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
this kind of check. The kernel
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
>> this kind of check. The kernel perhaps doesn't give guarantee about
>> utime/stime precision but now users may have got
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> > This patch series removes cputime scaling from kernel. It can be easily
> > done in user space using floating point if we provide sum_exec_runtime,
> > what patches 2/4 and 3/4 do. I have procps
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> This patch series removes cputime scaling from kernel. It can be easily
> done in user space using floating point if we provide sum_exec_runtime,
> what patches 2/4 and 3/4 do. I have procps patch which utilize that:
>
>
This patch series removes cputime scaling from kernel. It can be easily
done in user space using floating point if we provide sum_exec_runtime,
what patches 2/4 and 3/4 do. I have procps patch which utilize that:
http://people.redhat.com/sgruszka/procps-use-sum_exec_runtime.patch
I will post it,
This patch series removes cputime scaling from kernel. It can be easily
done in user space using floating point if we provide sum_exec_runtime,
what patches 2/4 and 3/4 do. I have procps patch which utilize that:
http://people.redhat.com/sgruszka/procps-use-sum_exec_runtime.patch
I will post it,
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka sgrus...@redhat.com:
This patch series removes cputime scaling from kernel. It can be easily
done in user space using floating point if we provide sum_exec_runtime,
what patches 2/4 and 3/4 do. I have procps patch which utilize that:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka sgrus...@redhat.com:
This patch series removes cputime scaling from kernel. It can be easily
done in user space using floating point if we provide sum_exec_runtime,
what patches 2/4 and 3/4 do. I
2013/4/4 Stanislaw Gruszka sgrus...@redhat.com:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I don't know. I'm not convinced userland is the right place to perform
this kind of check. The kernel perhaps doesn't give guarantee about
utime/stime precision but now users
14 matches
Mail list logo
