Sorry for delay.

On 11/16, Michael Holzheu wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 19:38 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > First of all, let me repeat, I am not going to discuss whether we need
> > these changes or not, I do not know even if I understand your motivation.
>
> Sorry, if I was not clear enough with my descriptions. Let me try to
> describe my motivation again:

Yes, more or less I see what this patch does (I hope ;).

quoted text
> 2. Because of reparent to init, there are situations where it is
>    not clear to which tasks the CPU time of dead tasks between
>    two snapshots has been accounted. This is a problem for example 2.

Yes, I see.

But I must admit, _personally_ I am not sure this problem worth the
trouble. And, I already mentioned daemonize() case, IOW I am not sure
it is _always_ right to choose exiting_parent->parent for accounting.
To me, this can be equally confusing. A user sees the running deamon
with ppid = 1, then this daemon exits and top reports the "unrelated"
process as cpu consumer.


But once again. I am _not_ against this patch. I never know when it
comes to new features. Certainly you know better if this suits top.

What I actually meant is: dear CC list, please look at this change
and comment ;)

Oleg.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/