From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1757083AbZKWKs7@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757083AbZKWKs7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:48:59 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757029AbZKWKs6
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:48:58 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44462 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756994AbZKWKs6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:48:58 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:46:40 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Spencer Candland <spencer@bluehost.com>,
       Am?rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix granularity of task_u/stime(), v2
Message-ID: <20091123114640.2b37af88@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091123102528.GT31961@balbir.in.ibm.com>
References: <4AFB9029.9000208@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20091112144919.GA6218@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com>
	<1258038038.4039.467.camel@laptop>
	<20091112154050.GC6218@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com>
	<4B01A8DB.6090002@bluehost.com>
	<20091117130851.GA3842@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com>
	<1258464288.7816.305.camel@laptop>
	<20091119181744.GA3743@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com>
	<4B05F835.10401@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20091123100925.GB25978@dhcp-lab-161.englab.brq.redhat.com>
	<20091123102528.GT31961@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Organization: RedHat
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:55:28 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> [2009-11-23 11:09:26]:
> [snip]
> > +
> > +		utime = task_utime(tsk);
> > +		stime = task_stime(tsk);
> > +		if (tsk->utime > utime || tsk->stime > stime) {
> > +			utime = tsk->utime;
> > +			stime = tsk->stime;
> > +		}
> 
> Won't this condition be problematic, since it can reset stime
> when tsk->utime > utime for example?

We use both {u,s}time adjusted values  or  both not adjusted values.
This seems to be right to me. Adjusting not help anyway, if we have
stime/utime ticks disproportion, e.g. task only gets stime ticks but
not gets utime ticks, but it runs in user and kernel space in
the same amount of time.

If this solution whold be accepted, patch will contain additional
comment.

Stanislaw