[PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

From: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

The task status file in proc file system did not contain
user-time and system-time. Thus, users could not get
those information of running task easily. I think
these values should be provived in human readable format.
By this patch, users can get stime and utime very easily.

Signed-off-by: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
 fs/proc/array.c |   11 +++++++++--
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
index 725a650..29afa68 100644
--- a/fs/proc/array.c
+++ b/fs/proc/array.c
@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
 	struct fdtable *fdt = NULL;
 	const struct cred *cred;
 	pid_t ppid, tpid;
+	struct timeval utime, stime;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	ppid = pid_alive(p) ?
@@ -173,6 +174,8 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
 			tpid = task_pid_nr_ns(tracer, ns);
 	}
 	cred = get_cred((struct cred *) __task_cred(p));
+	cputime_to_timeval(task_utime(p), &utime);
+	cputime_to_timeval(task_stime(p), &stime);
 	seq_printf(m,
 		"State:\t%s\n"
 		"Tgid:\t%d\n"
@@ -180,13 +183,17 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
 		"PPid:\t%d\n"
 		"TracerPid:\t%d\n"
 		"Uid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
-		"Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n",
+		"Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
+		"Utime:\t%lu.%06lu\n"
+		"Stime:\t%lu.%06lu\n",
 		get_task_state(p),
 		task_tgid_nr_ns(p, ns),
 		pid_nr_ns(pid, ns),
 		ppid, tpid,
 		cred->uid, cred->euid, cred->suid, cred->fsuid,
-		cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid);
+		cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid,
+		(unsigned long) utime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) utime.tv_usec,
+		(unsigned long) stime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) stime.tv_usec);
 
 	task_lock(p);
 	if (p->files)
-- 
1.4.4.4

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[Amerigo Wang]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:36:41PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>From: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
>Subject: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.
>
>The task status file in proc file system did not contain
>user-time and system-time. Thus, users could not get
>those information of running task easily. I think
>these values should be provived in human readable format.
>By this patch, users can get stime and utime very easily.


Why? /proc/<pid>/stat already has these.


>
>Signed-off-by: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
>Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
>Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>---
> fs/proc/array.c |   11 +++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
>index 725a650..29afa68 100644
>--- a/fs/proc/array.c
>+++ b/fs/proc/array.c
>@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> 	struct fdtable *fdt = NULL;
> 	const struct cred *cred;
> 	pid_t ppid, tpid;
>+	struct timeval utime, stime;
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	ppid = pid_alive(p) ?
>@@ -173,6 +174,8 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> 			tpid = task_pid_nr_ns(tracer, ns);
> 	}
> 	cred = get_cred((struct cred *) __task_cred(p));
>+	cputime_to_timeval(task_utime(p), &utime);
>+	cputime_to_timeval(task_stime(p), &stime);
> 	seq_printf(m,
> 		"State:\t%s\n"
> 		"Tgid:\t%d\n"
>@@ -180,13 +183,17 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> 		"PPid:\t%d\n"
> 		"TracerPid:\t%d\n"
> 		"Uid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
>-		"Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n",
>+		"Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
>+		"Utime:\t%lu.%06lu\n"
>+		"Stime:\t%lu.%06lu\n",
> 		get_task_state(p),
> 		task_tgid_nr_ns(p, ns),
> 		pid_nr_ns(pid, ns),
> 		ppid, tpid,
> 		cred->uid, cred->euid, cred->suid, cred->fsuid,
>-		cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid);
>+		cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid,
>+		(unsigned long) utime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) utime.tv_usec,
>+		(unsigned long) stime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) stime.tv_usec);
> 
> 	task_lock(p);
> 	if (p->files)
>-- 
>1.4.4.4
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:38:02 +0800
Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:36:41PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >From: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
> >Subject: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.
> >
> >The task status file in proc file system did not contain
> >user-time and system-time. Thus, users could not get
> >those information of running task easily. I think
> >these values should be provived in human readable format.
> >By this patch, users can get stime and utime very easily.
> 
> 
> Why? /proc/<pid>/stat already has these.
> 

I wonder /proc/<pid>/stat is unreadable for usual human.
Most of ents in /proc/<pid>/status is duplicated output of 
some other files(i.e. /proc/<pid>/stat) and /proc/<pid>/status is
for human readble format.

In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
good parser per line. 

?
-Kame

> 
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
> >Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
> >Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> >---
> > fs/proc/array.c |   11 +++++++++--
> > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
> >index 725a650..29afa68 100644
> >--- a/fs/proc/array.c
> >+++ b/fs/proc/array.c
> >@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > 	struct fdtable *fdt = NULL;
> > 	const struct cred *cred;
> > 	pid_t ppid, tpid;
> >+	struct timeval utime, stime;
> > 
> > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > 	ppid = pid_alive(p) ?
> >@@ -173,6 +174,8 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > 			tpid = task_pid_nr_ns(tracer, ns);
> > 	}
> > 	cred = get_cred((struct cred *) __task_cred(p));
> >+	cputime_to_timeval(task_utime(p), &utime);
> >+	cputime_to_timeval(task_stime(p), &stime);
> > 	seq_printf(m,
> > 		"State:\t%s\n"
> > 		"Tgid:\t%d\n"
> >@@ -180,13 +183,17 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > 		"PPid:\t%d\n"
> > 		"TracerPid:\t%d\n"
> > 		"Uid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
> >-		"Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n",
> >+		"Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
> >+		"Utime:\t%lu.%06lu\n"
> >+		"Stime:\t%lu.%06lu\n",
> > 		get_task_state(p),
> > 		task_tgid_nr_ns(p, ns),
> > 		pid_nr_ns(pid, ns),
> > 		ppid, tpid,
> > 		cred->uid, cred->euid, cred->suid, cred->fsuid,
> >-		cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid);
> >+		cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid,
> >+		(unsigned long) utime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) utime.tv_usec,
> >+		(unsigned long) stime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) stime.tv_usec);
> > 
> > 	task_lock(p);
> > 	if (p->files)
> >-- 
> >1.4.4.4
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[Amerigo Wang]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:42:42AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:38:02 +0800
>Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:36:41PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> >From: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
>> >Subject: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.
>> >
>> >The task status file in proc file system did not contain
>> >user-time and system-time. Thus, users could not get
>> >those information of running task easily. I think
>> >these values should be provived in human readable format.
>> >By this patch, users can get stime and utime very easily.
>> 
>> 
>> Why? /proc/<pid>/stat already has these.
>> 
>
>I wonder /proc/<pid>/stat is unreadable for usual human.
>Most of ents in /proc/<pid>/status is duplicated output of 
>some other files(i.e. /proc/<pid>/stat) and /proc/<pid>/status is
>for human readble format.


Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
something obvious).


>
>In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
>users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
>/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
>good parser per line. 
>

Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.

  ps -o pid,utime,stime

'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
> something obvious).
> 
> 
> >
> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
> >good parser per line. 
> >
> 
> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
> 
>   ps -o pid,utime,stime
> 
> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
> 
Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.

When I want to know status of a process of PID,
# ps -o pid,utime,stime  PID

'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
where thousands of processes runs.

Thanks,
-Kame

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[Amerigo Wang]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:22:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
>Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
>> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
>> something obvious).
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
>> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
>> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
>> >good parser per line. 
>> >
>> 
>> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
>> 
>>   ps -o pid,utime,stime
>> 
>> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
>> 
>Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.
>
>When I want to know status of a process of PID,
># ps -o pid,utime,stime  PID
>
>'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
>I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
>where thousands of processes runs.

Sure, we already have '-p' for 'ps', e.g.

 ps -p 1 -o pid,user,comm

Enjoy. :-)

Anyway, I would like to see 'ps' to have 'utime,stime' field, on
my machine, its output for 'utime,stime' looks wrong.

Maybe we should Cc procps developers?

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:32:02 +0800
Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:22:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
> >Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
> >> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
> >> something obvious).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
> >> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
> >> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
> >> >good parser per line. 
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
> >> 
> >>   ps -o pid,utime,stime
> >> 
> >> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
> >> 
> >Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.
> >
> >When I want to know status of a process of PID,
> ># ps -o pid,utime,stime  PID
> >
> >'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
> >I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
> >where thousands of processes runs.
> 
> Sure, we already have '-p' for 'ps', e.g.
> 
>  ps -p 1 -o pid,user,comm
> 
> Enjoy. :-)
I said it's verrrrry slow.

> 
> Anyway, I would like to see 'ps' to have 'utime,stime' field, on
> my machine, its output for 'utime,stime' looks wrong.
> 
> Maybe we should Cc procps developers?
ya, maybe. it's good to be CCed.


BTW, why all other status
Name:   cat
State:  R (running)
Tgid:   7068
Pid:    7068
PPid:   6115
TracerPid:      0
Uid:    500     500     500     500
Gid:    500     500     500     500
FDSize: 256
Groups: 500

are allowed to be duplicated ?

I bet stime.utime will be used more often than TracerPid/FDSize/ ;)

Thanks,
-Kame


> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[Amerigo Wang]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:32:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:32:02 +0800
>Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:22:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
>> >Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
>> >> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
>> >> something obvious).
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
>> >> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
>> >> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
>> >> >good parser per line. 
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
>> >> 
>> >>   ps -o pid,utime,stime
>> >> 
>> >> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
>> >> 
>> >Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.
>> >
>> >When I want to know status of a process of PID,
>> ># ps -o pid,utime,stime  PID
>> >
>> >'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
>> >I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
>> >where thousands of processes runs.
>> 
>> Sure, we already have '-p' for 'ps', e.g.
>> 
>>  ps -p 1 -o pid,user,comm
>> 
>> Enjoy. :-)
>I said it's verrrrry slow.


Hmm, for me it looks like that 'ps' should be fixed...

I haven't checked the source code of 'ps', but I don't think
this is O(n) if '-p' is specified. If we just use something
like 'test -d /proc/<pid>' it would be O(1).


>
>> 
>> Anyway, I would like to see 'ps' to have 'utime,stime' field, on
>> my machine, its output for 'utime,stime' looks wrong.
>> 
>> Maybe we should Cc procps developers?
>ya, maybe. it's good to be CCed.


Done. Albert?


>
>
>BTW, why all other status
>Name:   cat
>State:  R (running)
>Tgid:   7068
>Pid:    7068
>PPid:   6115
>TracerPid:      0
>Uid:    500     500     500     500
>Gid:    500     500     500     500
>FDSize: 256
>Groups: 500
>
>are allowed to be duplicated ?


I don't know... :( I still prefer to use 'ps'.

Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

Hi

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:32:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:32:02 +0800
> >Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:22:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
> >> >Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
> >> >> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
> >> >> something obvious).

Yes, hehe, I also expected so :-)



> >> >> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
> >> >> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
> >> >> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
> >> >> >good parser per line. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
> >> >> 
> >> >>   ps -o pid,utime,stime
> >> >> 
> >> >> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
>
> >> >Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.
> >> >
> >> >When I want to know status of a process of PID,
> >> ># ps -o pid,utime,stime  PID
> >> >
> >> >'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
> >> >I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
> >> >where thousands of processes runs.
> >> 
> >> Sure, we already have '-p' for 'ps', e.g.
> >> 
> >>  ps -p 1 -o pid,user,comm
> >> 
> >> Enjoy. :-)
> >I said it's verrrrry slow.
>
> 
> Hmm, for me it looks like that 'ps' should be fixed...
> 
> I haven't checked the source code of 'ps', but I don't think
> this is O(n) if '-p' is specified. If we just use something
> like 'test -d /proc/<pid>' it would be O(1).

I think kamezawa-san is right.
procps always read ALL proc. and after, it check pid by want_this_proc().

That's obviously O(n) ;-)

---------------------------------------------------------------
static void simple_spew(void){
(snip)
  switch(thread_flags & (TF_show_proc|TF_loose_tasks|TF_show_task)){
  case TF_show_proc:                   // normal non-thread output
    while(readproc(ptp,&buf)){
      if(want_this_proc(&buf)){
        show_one_proc(&buf, proc_format_list);
      }
      if(buf.cmdline) free((void*)*buf.cmdline); // ought to reuse
      if(buf.environ) free((void*)*buf.environ); // ought to reuse
    }
    break;
---------------------------------------------------------------



> >> Anyway, I would like to see 'ps' to have 'utime,stime' field, on
> >> my machine, its output for 'utime,stime' looks wrong.
> >> 
> >> Maybe we should Cc procps developers?
> >ya, maybe. it's good to be CCed.
> 
> Done. Albert?

Albert? What do you think?



> >BTW, why all other status
> >Name:   cat
> >State:  R (running)
> >Tgid:   7068
> >Pid:    7068
> >PPid:   6115
> >TracerPid:      0
> >Uid:    500     500     500     500
> >Gid:    500     500     500     500
> >FDSize: 256
> >Groups: 500
> >
> >are allowed to be duplicated ?
> 
> 
> I don't know... :( I still prefer to use 'ps'.

Do their have any exclusive relation?

[PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

[Tatsuhiro Aoshima]

From: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

The task status file in proc file system did not contain
user-time and system-time. Thus, users could not get
those information of running task easily. I think
these values should be provived in human readable format.
By this patch, users can get stime and utime very easily.

Signed-off-by: Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
 fs/proc/array.c |   11 +++++++++--
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/array.c b/fs/proc/array.c
index 725a650..29afa68 100644
--- a/fs/proc/array.c
+++ b/fs/proc/array.c
@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m,
struct pid_namespace *ns,
       struct fdtable *fdt = NULL;
       const struct cred *cred;
       pid_t ppid, tpid;
+       struct timeval utime, stime;

       rcu_read_lock();
       ppid = pid_alive(p) ?
@@ -173,6 +174,8 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m,
struct pid_namespace *ns,
                       tpid = task_pid_nr_ns(tracer, ns);
       }
       cred = get_cred((struct cred *) __task_cred(p));
+       cputime_to_timeval(task_utime(p), &utime);
+       cputime_to_timeval(task_stime(p), &stime);
       seq_printf(m,
               "State:\t%s\n"
               "Tgid:\t%d\n"
@@ -180,13 +183,17 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file
*m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
               "PPid:\t%d\n"
               "TracerPid:\t%d\n"
               "Uid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
-               "Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n",
+               "Gid:\t%d\t%d\t%d\t%d\n"
+               "Utime:\t%lu.%06lu\n"
+               "Stime:\t%lu.%06lu\n",
               get_task_state(p),
               task_tgid_nr_ns(p, ns),
               pid_nr_ns(pid, ns),
               ppid, tpid,
               cred->uid, cred->euid, cred->suid, cred->fsuid,
-               cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid);
+               cred->gid, cred->egid, cred->sgid, cred->fsgid,
+               (unsigned long) utime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) utime.tv_usec,
+               (unsigned long) stime.tv_sec, (unsigned long) stime.tv_usec);

       task_lock(p);
       if (p->files)