* Arnd Bergmann: > 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? Or introduce something that covers FreeBSD's wait6 functionality as well (resource usage by subprocesses of the subprocess). Thanks, Florian
