On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 15:08 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I'm not really a fan of schedstat, esp if you have to use it very
> frequently, the overhead of open()+read()+close() + parsing text is
> quite high.
> 
> Then again, if people are really going to use this (big if I guess) we
> could add yet another syscall for this or whatever.
> 
Ok, we'll see at that time.

> grmbl, so I was going to say, just pad it to a nice 2^n size, but then I
> saw that struct timespec is defined as two long's, which means we're
> going to have to do compat crap.
> 
> Thomas is there a sane time format in existence? I thought the whole
> purpose of timeval/timespec was to avoid having to use a u64, but then
> using longs as opposed to int totally defeats the purpose. 
> 
Fine, and u64 will be. Going for that...

> > what about the len <== sizeof(struct sched_param2) in
> > sched_{set,get}{param,scheduler}2()... Does this still make sense, or
> > are we removing it? 
> 
> Since we're going for a constant sized structure we might as well take
> it out.
>
... and for that!

thanks,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net /
dario.faggioli@jabber.org