On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:00:37 +0200If we get rid of cputime64_t, it doesn't mean we need to get rid of cputime_t. Or am I missing the point here?
Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 19:20 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:@@ -1039,6 +1035,8 @@ static void posix_cpu_timers_init(struct task_struct *tsk)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tsk->cpu_timers[2]);
}
+struct task_group *task_group(struct task_struct *p);
That doesn't appear to be actually used in this file..
Also, since there's already a for_each_possible_cpu() loop in that
proc/stat function, would it yield some code improvement to make
total_forks a cpu_usage_stat?
I guess the whole cputime64_t crap gets in the way of that being
natural...
We could of course kill off the cputime64_t thing, its pretty pointless
and its a u64 all over the board. I think Martin or Heiko created this
stuff (although I might be wrong, my git tree doesn't go back that far).
The reason to introduce cputime_t has been that different architecture
needed differently sized integers for their respective representation
of cputime. On x86-32 the number of ticks is recorded in a u32, on s390
we needed a u64 for the cpu timer values. cputime64_t is needed for
cpustat and other sums of cputime that would overflow a cputime_t
(in particular on x86-32 with the u32 cputime_t and the u64 cputime64_t).
Now we would convert everything to u64 but that would cause x86-32 to
use 64-bit arithmetic for the tick counter. If that is acceptable I
can't say.