Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755768Ab3D0CQF (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:16:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172]:39985 "EHLO mail-ob0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753894Ab3D0CQE (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:16:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1367027476.7911.60.camel@Wailaba2> References: <1365184746.874.103.camel@Wailaba2> <1365593710.30071.52.camel@laptop> <1365608911.707.65.camel@Wailaba2> <1365763837.17140.52.camel@laptop> <1365782115.17140.68.camel@laptop> <1366951210.7911.28.camel@Wailaba2> <1366957639.7911.42.camel@Wailaba2> <517AD0AE.1030404@gmail.com> <1367027476.7911.60.camel@Wailaba2> From: KOSAKI Motohiro Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:15:42 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock To: Olivier Langlois Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1614 Lines: 38 On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Olivier Langlois wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 15:08 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> > I need to add that I can only confirm that to be true with >> > sum_exec_runtime. >> > >> > To affirm it to be true for stime and utime would require more >> > investigation. I didn't look them at all. I was only concerned with >> > sum_exec_runtime. >> > >> > I will prepare a v2 of the patch accounting all the feedbacks that I >> > received from KOSAKI Motohiro, Frederic Weisbecker and Peter Zijlstra >> > and send it back here for further discussion. >> > >> > Thank you very much all! >> >> Do you mean your utime test case still failure? If you share your test-case, >> I'm going to look at your issue too. >> > Sure with pleasure. My testcase is glibc-2.17/rt/tst-cputimer1.c > > That being said, it strictly test CPUCLOCK_SCHED timers. Hence my focus > when modifying the code was strictly on sum_exec_runtime. > > If utime and stime components of cputimer are moving faster than their > associated clock, this is something that I did not address. Hmm... Sorry. I'm confused. 1) I haven't seen any glibc test failure after applying my patch. 2) tst-cputimer1.c only have CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID test and don't have any utime, stime tests. Please let me know if you've seen any failure after applying my patch. -- 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/