On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:38 AM <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On November 15, 2018 7:30:11 AM PST, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:39:03AM -0800, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:05 AM Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:20:51PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> >2. The time precision provided by struct rusage returned by wait4(2)
> >and waitid(2) is too low for syscall time counting (strace -c) nowadays,
> >this can be observing by running in a row a simple command like "strace -c
> >pwd".
> >
> >The fix is to return a more appropriate structure than struct rusage
> >by the new pwait6(2)/pwaitid(2) syscall mentioned above, where
> >struct timeval is replaced with struct timespec or even struct
> >timespec64.
>
> Arnd: w.r.t. our previous discussion, this would seem to justify going to timespec(64) for these kind of cases.
Ok, and I assume we want the same layout for getrusage(2) then, right?
Arnd
