On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:35:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* Martin Schwidefsky<schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
* Stephen Rothwell<sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime
overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit
3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from
the tip tree.
I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ...
Agreed.
Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the
current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits
should go upstream via the scheduler tree.
All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and
cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ?
I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time
related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all
concentrated in a single tree?
Ok, will do. 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.