Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] cputime: Make the reported utime+stime correspond to the actual runtime. | From | Jason Low <> | Date | Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:11:24 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 21:08 +0200, Fredrik Markström wrote: > I don't think that is good enough. I believe the reason the > max()-stuff was initially put there to make sure the returned stime > and utime components are increasing monotonically. The scaling code > can cause either or to decrease from one call to the other even i > rtime increases. > > The purpose of my patch is to also make sure that the sum of utime and > stime is rtime. > > I lost the last part of the patch in my previous email: > > > - cputime_advance(&prev->stime, stime); > - cputime_advance(&prev->utime, utime); > + if (stime < prev->stime) { > + stime = prev->stime; > + utime = rtime - stime; > + } else if (utime < prev->utime) { > + utime = prev->utime; > + stime = rtime - utime; > + } > -out: > + if (prev->stime + prev->utime < rtime) { > + prev->stime = stime; > + prev->utime = utime; > + } > *ut = prev->utime; > *st = prev->stime;
In this case, we might want to avoid the extra stime and utime computations if prev->stime + prev->utime >= rtime, since they wouldn't get used.
| |