On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:38:10 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > First of all, let me repeat, I am not going to discuss whether we need > these changes or not, I do not know even if I understand your motivation. Hmm, is the motivation of whole patch series unclear or just the details in this one? What we want is a low-overhead tool that precisely shows where the cpu spent its time (or didn't because of steal time). The granularity target is tenths of microseconds, something that should be possible with decent hardware. What makes life hard is the corner case of a task that has been reparented to init. That is reason for this complicated secondary accounting structure. > My only concern is correctness, but You review effort to improve correctness is very much appreciated. We'll try to split the patches to make review easier. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
