Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:19:54 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree |
| |
On 12/19/2011 06:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 13:31 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: >> Just one question: are you sure that you want the cpustat array >> to be u64 instead of cputime64_t? The content of the cpustat array is defined >> by the architecture semantics of cputime64_t, for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y >> this is not a jiffy counter. If the array is u64 we won't get the sparse >> checking when reading from cpustat. > > So as Glauber said the reason was that we wanted to use simply > operators, and IIRC he wanted to add a few fields that had to be u64. > > I'm not sure what the current plans are wrt adding more fields, but with > your work cputime_t should again be a simple type and thus regular math > operators should work again, right? > > Glauber, do you still need to add fields?
Due to the current state of discussions of cpu vs cpuacct, I think the final state of this is quite unclear. However, I think Martin's work is a quite worthwhile piece for us to have. So last case we can add extra fields in a different array and tell them apart by the index, etc. It shouldn't be expensive at all.
| |