Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

[Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>]

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
> >
> > As already Arnd pointed out, your patch should be fine as that is how
> > it was before my patch. Since nobody saw any problems before my patch,
> > lower granularity should be fine.
> 
> Agreed.  Mel's patch basically restores the previous behavior while
> keeping the 64-bit timestamp size.
> 
> Considering where we are at with the merge window, I'm going to merge
> this into the audit/next branch and not send this up to Linus during
> the current window; while the patch is small, I like to give things
> some time in linux-next before sending them up.

That's completely fine, I knew the timing was off. Thanks for picking it
up.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs