Hello Oleg, On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 19:38 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I already asked you to split these changes, perhaps you can do this? > Say, bacct_add_tsk() looks overcomplicated, the change in copy_process() > shouldn't introduce the new CLONE_THREAD check, not sure I understand > why release_task() was chosen for reparenting, other nits... I want to establish the new hierarchy when a new process is forked and not for new threads, therefore the check for CLONE_THREAD in copy_process(). I do the reparenting with reparent_acct() when a process dies, therefore the check for "group_dead" in exit_signal(). > But it is not easy to discuss these completely different things > looking at the single patch. > > Imho, it would be much better if you make a separate patch which > adds acct_parent/etc and implements the parallel hierarchy. This > also makes sense because it touches the core kernel. > > Personally I think that even "struct cdata" + __account_ctime() helper > needs a separate patch, and perhaps this change makes sense by itself > as cleanup. And this way the "trivial" changes (like the changes in > k_getrusage) won't distract from the functional changes. > > The final change should introduce cdata_acct and actually implement > the complete cumulative accounting. So you want to have the following three patches: * Introduce "struct cdata" + __account_ctime() (no functional change) * Add cdata_acct accounting + parallel accounting hierarchy * Add taskstats interface to export the data to userspace Correct? Michael -- 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
