Re: [PATCH 3/4] cputime: Consolidate vtime handling on context switch

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:28:17 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:22:19PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:16:49 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The archs that implement virtual cputime accounting all
> > > flush the cputime of a task when it gets descheduled
> > > and sometimes set up some ground initialization for the
> > > next task to account its cputime.
> > > 
> > > These archs all put their own hooks in their context
> > > switch callbacks and handle the off-case themselves.
> > > 
> > > Consolidate this by creating a new account_switch_vtime()
> > > callback called in generic code right after a context switch
> > > and that these archs must implement to flush the prev task
> > > cputime and initialize the next task cputime related state.
> > 
> > That change requires that the accounting for the previous process
> > can be done before finish_arch_switch() completed. With the old
> > code the architecture could to the accounting call in the middle
> > of finish_arch_switch, that is not possible anymore. Dunno if this
> > is relevant or not. For s390 the new code should work fine.
> 
> I'm not sure how this could potentially cause a problem. Interrupts are disabled
> between while we switch_to() until finish_lock_switch(). So nothing
> should be able to mess up with the accounting of the prev task.
> 
> I don't really understand what you mean actually.

It is more a theoretical consideration. If the finish_arch_switch code
updates fields that are required to do the cputime accounting then the
order could be important. But then you could move that necessary code
from finish_arch_switch to account_switch_vtime.
As said that change is fine for s390, so I'm good with it.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.