Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:30:58 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, take3] getrusage() : Fill ru_inblock and ru_oublock fields if possible |
| |
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:37:23 +0300 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote:
> On 03/19, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > [...snip...] > > do { > > utime = cputime_add(utime, t->utime); > > @@ -2040,6 +2045,8 @@ static void k_getrusage(struct task_stru > > r->ru_nivcsw += t->nivcsw; > > r->ru_minflt += t->min_flt; > > r->ru_majflt += t->maj_flt; > > + r->ru_inblock += task_io_get_inblock(t); > > + r->ru_oublock += task_io_get_oublock(t); > > t = next_thread(t); > > } while (t != p); > > (offtopic) > > We are reading u64 read_bytes/write_bytes which could be updated asynchronously. > /proc/pid/io does the same.
Yup, as noted in the Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt documentation ;)
> Of course, I don't blame this patch, just a stupid question: can we do something? > I guess not.
Yes, I find it hard to justify the additional expense which fixing this would cause.
Which probably means that someone will find it terribly terribly important and we have to go and do something horrid anyway. Sigh.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |