On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:15 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 20:21 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the cputime tree got a conflict in
> > > kernel/sched.c between commit 74fcd524e808975dd546dac847119f1995a7c622
> > > ("account_steal_time: kill the unneeded account_group_system_time()")
> > > from the tip-core tree and commit
> > > b7f4776b7f575ed8f288c44b64befd241fd44458 ("[PATCH] idle cputime
> > > accounting") from the cputime tree.
> > >
> > > The latter removes the call to account_group_system_time() as a side
> > > effect of further changes. So the fixup is to just take the latter
> > > change. I can carry the merge fix.
> >
> > Why does s390 do its own cpu accounting?
>
> Is that a trick question? I invented the cputime accounting specifically
> for s390 because it is a virtual architecture and the standard cpu
> accounting numbers are just useless.
Nah, just general ignorance brought on by the mondays on a tuesday ;-)
Right, makes sense, is it shared with all other virt* folks out there?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
