From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752344AbZB1FZi (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:25:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751179AbZB1FZa (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:25:30 -0500 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:36189 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750900AbZB1FZ3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:25:29 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090228011115.GC28769@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090227140537.390905c4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090227162928.6225fc80.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <661fca240cb094bcf4d261ccebab9848.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> <20090228011115.GC28769@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:25:22 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] change cpuacct usage percpu format v2 From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" To: "Dhaval Giani" Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "Ken Chen" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "menage@google.com" , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , mingo@elte.hu, "akpm@linux-foundation.org" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 09:42:17AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> BTW, current interface to reset cpuacct (write ops) just reset >> specified level of cpuacct and will not clear other hierarchical levels. >> Doesn't this behavior confuse software ? >> > > hmmm. This got missed when we introduced hierarchy. But I wonder if it > is needed? > IIUC, cpuacct.usage just shows sum of itself and all children's usage and its own usage can be calclated by reading all usage of hierarchy. So, reset ops seems to be a bit broken. And by this, parent's usage can be smaller than children. How about adding limitation as "you can clear usage only when there are no children" ? Maybe not very strange limitaton under hierarchical system. Thanks, -Kame